we'll see how they handle the 2nd Amendment fight this year
Do you mean the Washington DC case? I hope they hold up the 2nd.
we'll know if the Supremes are simply a bunch of puppets for the new Federal Oligarchy
I don't think this is a good case for this as the Bush admin generally supports the 2nd.
Their ruling on the Imminent Domain (or lack thereof) was also troubling
Yeah, the Kelo v. New London ruling was a travesty. And the thing is is New London condemned people's homes so a big business could build on it and now redevelopment may not happen. Though Susette Kelo and her neighbors who joined her lost something good came out of it, because of this case a number of states and local governments have changed the laws regarding eminent domain. Some changes have been that private developers can't have property condemned, the property can only be condemned if the government is going to use it, such as building a public school.
How you set a record deficit every year your in office then claim to be on track for a balanced budget, I'm not sure.
Besides that that's a speech, he doesn't provide any real data to support his assertion.
On another note he says in the next paragraph "The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks". I don't trust government period but since he's been president I distrust it even more. What Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty" I fear is especially applicable today.
I realize I live in a nanny state that attempts to dictate everything we do while appearing to be liberal
Yea, I live in Minneapolis. That's something that bothered me when I moved here, that it was a Blue State and no alcohol was allowed to be sold on Sundays. Where I moved from it was left up to the local governments, the city I lived outside of banned alcohol sells on Sundays but the county allowed it.
How can you use the driver's licence as ID, what if I don't drive? I'm not entitled to have a photo ID then? Driver's licence should be used just for that: to prove that you can drive.
Driver's licenses are just that, for driving, though they are used as ID as well. Every state also issues a state ID and you get those the same place you get the DL. You can also get a passport.
The U.S. is no longer a band of 13 competitive colonies who had to be pushed into staying in a union. It's a coherent whole, and we might as well reflect that in government.
I'd rather have 50 labs than 1 monstrosity. By allowing each state to try something else they can more quickly see what works and what doesn't. When something works for one state other states can try it as well and when something doesn't work the other states know not to try it.
let the Supremes decide if they can usurp authority that is _NOT_ enumerated to the Federal government.
Unfortunately with the Justices currently sitting on the bench I fear the USSC would allow the DHS to do almost anything it wants. After all they had to twist the Interstate Commerce Clause so it was unrecognizable to deny California's state rights to allow medical marijuana.
And in the end, people who picked their poison, would end up paying for it, one way or another. Think what good a $1 tax on a Starbucks Latte would bring alone!
Except that Latte doesn't poison you, it can actually can help you. Studies are showing for instance that coffee helps "lower your risk of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and colon cancer".
I wonder if the DHS consciously constructs slippery slopes and has timelines drawn up for when to feed what to the American people, or if they're just really good at accidentally destroying our civil liberties...
Behind the scenes the DHS and RealID has always been about tracking people.
The two year old son of as meth addict mom was tossed off a bridge onto the H-1 highway by their meth addict neighbor.
n theory, the notion of freedom of choice wrt drugs and personal responsibility for any consequences sounds nice. However, in practice, ugly things like this occur to innocent and powerless victims, undermining arguments for legalization.
Another sad story: "Body is last of 4 kids thrown off bridge" no drugs involved. It doesn't take illegal drugs for something bad to happen, bad things happen with and without drugs being involved. You make the bad act illegal not drugs.
But that's not why hemp AKA marjuana was made illegal. Hemp was made illegal because it posed a potential treat to the wealth of wealthy and powerful people. Some of those who pressed to have hemp made illegal included William Randolph Hearst, a powerful newspaper magnate who owned thousands of acres of forest he harvested for the pulp to make paper he sold; Du Pont who was granted a patent on making plastics from petroleum oil, and his financial backer Andrew Mellon of the Mellon bank; and Rockefeller of Standard Oil and Rothschild of Shell. In the 1930s, before hemp was made illegal, MIT did a study on the use of hemp to make paper, they concluded an acre of hemp was able to produce more paper than an acre of forest. Before Du Pont's patent plastic was made from plants of which hemp was a good source, now research is again being done on making Bioplastic. Among other advantages it is renewable and it's biodegradable. Eastman Kodak made plastic for both the cameras and the film from plant cellulose, the original cellophane wrap for food was made from cellulose. In the 1920s and '30s Henry Ford worked on making ethanol from hemp as a fuel for vehicles. He also used hemp to make plastics for them. Rudolph Diesel inventor of the Diesel engine designed it to run on most any vegetable oil including hemp seed oil. In front of congress when Dr. James Woodward, a doctor as well as lawyer, testified for the AMA he said the AMA would have denounced the law making hemp illegal sooner but the AMA had only learned the "Mexican devil weed" to be outlawed was in fact hemp and was used a lot in medicine. He testified it should not be made illegal.
"If I derive pleasure out of it, then it can't be wrong." I'm sure there are plenty of sexual deviants (molesters, rapists, etc.) and hate-crime perpetrators who would agree with you on this one.
Thing is is molesters and rapists violate another person's rights whereas smoking hemp does not.
If he approached them in a friendly manner, instead of lawyering up like some suggest, and pointed out that they no longer use this software and that it might be good publicity for them to release it as OS they would probably would say yes.
Unless it's a PHB who may be concerned about legal issues.
That seems to imply that the company's new product may one day be in competition with older code that it paid to develop
It implies no such thing, now if OP had said the company was a software company then it would stand to reason the older open sourced code would compeat. As it is though there's nothing in the question that states what the code is for, whether the code is for a program the company sells or if it's only used internally.
every business owner does think he knows how to do it better than the other guy. That is why he started the business. And it can't be otherwise.
Not everybody starts a business because they think they can do better than the other guy, some start their own business because they don't want to slave for someone else. I want to work for myself in part because I want to set my own work hours and work wherever I want, within reason.
when starting a business, you can do it worse, or the same, or better.
Or do it differently.
You only start a business if you believe that you can do it better in some manner
Or because you want to work for yourself or any of the reason I said above.
Probably the best option is to get the company to GPL the code, but to retain copyright ownership of it. That way you and others can use it outside of the company, even contribute code back to the company. If it becomes popular, the company can sell it under a commercial license as well.
I don't know the legal ramifications or how the GPL stands on it but it seems to me that if it's GPLed and others contribute code the code then can't be closed, they could sell it with a commercial license but the GPL would allow anyone else to sell it commercially as well.
short sell the acquirer and buy the stock of the target
Somehow I miss understood this. So what they are doing is shorting MS and buying Yahoo! Then when, if, MS acquires Yahoo! those Yahoo! shares are converted to MS shares which they can then sell.
I admit that I was ignorant enough to think we were off the gold standard during the Great Depression
We were on it then but Nixon took the US off the gold standard. However according to this article President Franklin D. Roosevelt effectively took the US off the Gold Standard by making it illegal to own gold, except for jewelery.
That says answer #2 could (hypothetically) be contradicted in the future if adherence to answer #1 required the President to give a misleading answer. It doesn't say answer #1 by itself contains a contradiction, nor does it say that I believed OP was saying #1 contained a contradiction.
In that case I apologize.
As it turns out, nevurthls (the OP) did explain that he believed answer #1 was, in itself, unclear (not contradictory). This is not what I suggested his intended meaning was. Further, he believes that, by giving an unclear answer to #1, #2 was contradicted (now, not in the future as in my hypothetical). Since he is the one claiming #1 is unclear, I repeat that you should take it up with him.
And just what rules are these that would prevent, say, Boeing, from launching a probe to Pluto?
Government controls air space over land. Even if I wanted to I couldn't launch a rocket anywhere I wanted to. And yes I used to build and launch rockets, when I started high school I joined a model rocketry club. There we'd build and launch model rockets. Or take flying, except for soar planes and Ultralights you have to have a pilot's license. My uncle built his own plane and he had to have it licensed or certified for flight.
Paul wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and permit the states to prohibit abortion.
Abortion is one issue I disagree with Ron Paul on. However I disagree with every candidate on one issue or another.
Some people oppose Roe v. Wade only because it violated states rights. Paul opposes it for that reason and because he considers abortion to be "the greatest moral issue of our time".
As I said abortion is one of the issues I disagree with, for two reasons. One is I believe in choice and the second is I believe it should be national not state based. However I support him because I have more disagreements with other candidates than I do with him. I'll support him until I know who the Libertarian candidate is, then depending on that candidate's positions on the issues I may support him or her. I support and or vote for the person not the party. I've voted for Democrats, independents, Libertarians, Reform party candidates, and Republicans. Actually I support open primaries not closed ones, I want to be able to vote for the person I think is the best in each party.
I know a lot of Libertarians are all gung-ho about being pro-choice because, superficially, it sounds like less government intrusion.
True but other Libertarians are pro-life. This is one issue in the LP, Libertarian Party, where there's a split. For instance here's some discussions by both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. The LP website is filled with them.
Word games aside, this is an impossible proposition. Pro-choice means "abortions should be legal on demand".
It isn't an impossible proposition. Like I said I'm against abortion personally except to save the live of the woman or maybe rape, I'd never pay for one and don't want government to pay either, but I also believe I don't have the right to tell anyone else they can't have one. Instead I'd prefer to see the need, perceived or necessary, for abortions reduced. For instance I support increasing sex ed and condom use, not just "just say no".
The pro-choice stance requires stripping some human beings of the fundamental right to life.
That's a bias, some don't believe a fetus is a human being until it's viable on it's own. Before then it's a parasite.
The pro-life stance (which can include exceptions for rape/incest, life/serious health, etc.) rests upon the proposition that all human beings have an equal right to life.
Something I ask pro-lifers is if they would allow an abortion if the expectant mother's life is in jeopardy. Many though not all are against any exception, so I point out they in fact are not pro-life because they'd rather let the mother die, and possibly the fetus as well, than let her have an abortion. In the same vein I may also ask if they are anti or pro capital punishment. And usually they are pro capital punishment. I call these people hypocrites.
The stances of the pro-choice and pro-life sides with respect to human rights are mutually exclusive. "I wouldn't get an abortion, but I can't legislate it", or "I think it's morally wrong but I can't impose my morality on you" are not pro-life positions. They are pro-choice and pro-choice only because they rule out the right to life of certain kinds of human beings. That is not pro-life. Merely finding abortion morally problematic or icky is insufficient for being pro-life.
Slashdot Mirror
we'll see how they handle the 2nd Amendment fight this year
Do you mean the Washington DC case? I hope they hold up the 2nd.
we'll know if the Supremes are simply a bunch of puppets for the new Federal Oligarchy
I don't think this is a good case for this as the Bush admin generally supports the 2nd.
Their ruling on the Imminent Domain (or lack thereof) was also troubling
Yeah, the Kelo v. New London ruling was a travesty. And the thing is is New London condemned people's homes so a big business could build on it and now redevelopment may not happen. Though Susette Kelo and her neighbors who joined her lost something good came out of it, because of this case a number of states and local governments have changed the laws regarding eminent domain. Some changes have been that private developers can't have property condemned, the property can only be condemned if the government is going to use it, such as building a public school.
FalconHow you set a record deficit every year your in office then claim to be on track for a balanced budget, I'm not sure.
Besides that that's a speech, he doesn't provide any real data to support his assertion.
On another note he says in the next paragraph "The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks". I don't trust government period but since he's been president I distrust it even more. What Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty" I fear is especially applicable today.
FalconI realize I live in a nanny state that attempts to dictate everything we do while appearing to be liberal
Yea, I live in Minneapolis. That's something that bothered me when I moved here, that it was a Blue State and no alcohol was allowed to be sold on Sundays. Where I moved from it was left up to the local governments, the city I lived outside of banned alcohol sells on Sundays but the county allowed it.
FalconHow can you use the driver's licence as ID, what if I don't drive? I'm not entitled to have a photo ID then? Driver's licence should be used just for that: to prove that you can drive.
Driver's licenses are just that, for driving, though they are used as ID as well. Every state also issues a state ID and you get those the same place you get the DL. You can also get a passport.
FalconThe U.S. is no longer a band of 13 competitive colonies who had to be pushed into staying in a union. It's a coherent whole, and we might as well reflect that in government.
I'd rather have 50 labs than 1 monstrosity. By allowing each state to try something else they can more quickly see what works and what doesn't. When something works for one state other states can try it as well and when something doesn't work the other states know not to try it.
Falconlet the Supremes decide if they can usurp authority that is _NOT_ enumerated to the Federal government.
Unfortunately with the Justices currently sitting on the bench I fear the USSC would allow the DHS to do almost anything it wants. After all they had to twist the Interstate Commerce Clause so it was unrecognizable to deny California's state rights to allow medical marijuana.
FalconWhatever level of threat they do or do not pose, it is an entirely different sort of threat than the one posed by the USSR.
Ah but you don't fight those "who hate our freedom" by restricting said freedom, in restricting freedom they win.
However in fact it, 911, wasn't about freedom. Muslims, al quada, wanted the US military out of their holy land, Saudi Arabia.
FalconAnd in the end, people who picked their poison, would end up paying for it, one way or another. Think what good a $1 tax on a Starbucks Latte would bring alone!
Except that Latte doesn't poison you, it can actually can help you. Studies are showing for instance that coffee helps "lower your risk of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and colon cancer".
FalconI am not American but I wonder why you have such problems with personal identity numbers
For one thing it's not a power given to the federal government by the Constitution of the USA.
FalconNo, No, No! You're supposed to say "Swing Heil"!
FalconI wonder if the DHS consciously constructs slippery slopes and has timelines drawn up for when to feed what to the American people, or if they're just really good at accidentally destroying our civil liberties...
Behind the scenes the DHS and RealID has always been about tracking people.
FalconThe two year old son of as meth addict mom was tossed off a bridge onto the H-1 highway by their meth addict neighbor.
n theory, the notion of freedom of choice wrt drugs and personal responsibility for any consequences sounds nice. However, in practice, ugly things like this occur to innocent and powerless victims, undermining arguments for legalization.
Another sad story: "Body is last of 4 kids thrown off bridge" no drugs involved. It doesn't take illegal drugs for something bad to happen, bad things happen with and without drugs being involved. You make the bad act illegal not drugs.
But that's not why hemp AKA marjuana was made illegal. Hemp was made illegal because it posed a potential treat to the wealth of wealthy and powerful people. Some of those who pressed to have hemp made illegal included William Randolph Hearst, a powerful newspaper magnate who owned thousands of acres of forest he harvested for the pulp to make paper he sold; Du Pont who was granted a patent on making plastics from petroleum oil, and his financial backer Andrew Mellon of the Mellon bank; and Rockefeller of Standard Oil and Rothschild of Shell. In the 1930s, before hemp was made illegal, MIT did a study on the use of hemp to make paper, they concluded an acre of hemp was able to produce more paper than an acre of forest. Before Du Pont's patent plastic was made from plants of which hemp was a good source, now research is again being done on making Bioplastic. Among other advantages it is renewable and it's biodegradable. Eastman Kodak made plastic for both the cameras and the film from plant cellulose, the original cellophane wrap for food was made from cellulose. In the 1920s and '30s Henry Ford worked on making ethanol from hemp as a fuel for vehicles. He also used hemp to make plastics for them. Rudolph Diesel inventor of the Diesel engine designed it to run on most any vegetable oil including hemp seed oil. In front of congress when Dr. James Woodward, a doctor as well as lawyer, testified for the AMA he said the AMA would have denounced the law making hemp illegal sooner but the AMA had only learned the "Mexican devil weed" to be outlawed was in fact hemp and was used a lot in medicine. He testified it should not be made illegal.
Falcon"If I derive pleasure out of it, then it can't be wrong." I'm sure there are plenty of sexual deviants (molesters, rapists, etc.) and hate-crime perpetrators who would agree with you on this one.
Thing is is molesters and rapists violate another person's rights whereas smoking hemp does not.
FalconIt has two wings, the Republicans and the Democrats.
I wonder if you know just how close you are to the mark. Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party.
I'd like to see neckties outlawed, or mandated that anyone who wears one hangs himself with it.!
Instead have the laws say only Winsor knot ties can be used, none of those clip on ties, and the person has to know how to tie it.
FalconI'm really starting to like the way the French do a revolution.
So you liked the Reign of Terror?
FalconIf he approached them in a friendly manner, instead of lawyering up like some suggest, and pointed out that they no longer use this software and that it might be good publicity for them to release it as OS they would probably would say yes.
Unless it's a PHB who may be concerned about legal issues.
FalconThat seems to imply that the company's new product may one day be in competition with older code that it paid to develop
It implies no such thing, now if OP had said the company was a software company then it would stand to reason the older open sourced code would compeat. As it is though there's nothing in the question that states what the code is for, whether the code is for a program the company sells or if it's only used internally.
Falconevery business owner does think he knows how to do it better than the other guy. That is why he started the business. And it can't be otherwise.
Not everybody starts a business because they think they can do better than the other guy, some start their own business because they don't want to slave for someone else. I want to work for myself in part because I want to set my own work hours and work wherever I want, within reason.
when starting a business, you can do it worse, or the same, or better.
Or do it differently.
You only start a business if you believe that you can do it better in some manner
Or because you want to work for yourself or any of the reason I said above.
FalconProbably the best option is to get the company to GPL the code, but to retain copyright ownership of it. That way you and others can use it outside of the company, even contribute code back to the company. If it becomes popular, the company can sell it under a commercial license as well.
I don't know the legal ramifications or how the GPL stands on it but it seems to me that if it's GPLed and others contribute code the code then can't be closed, they could sell it with a commercial license but the GPL would allow anyone else to sell it commercially as well.
FalconI didn't see anything that suggested the new replacement was coming from within; sounds like they bought a packaged solution instead of building one.
Actually he says the company is developing new code so they aren't buying a package.
Falconshort sell the acquirer and buy the stock of the target
Somehow I miss understood this. So what they are doing is shorting MS and buying Yahoo! Then when, if, MS acquires Yahoo! those Yahoo! shares are converted to MS shares which they can then sell.
Is that what you meant?
FalconI admit that I was ignorant enough to think we were off the gold standard during the Great Depression
We were on it then but Nixon took the US off the gold standard. However according to this article President Franklin D. Roosevelt effectively took the US off the Gold Standard by making it illegal to own gold, except for jewelery.
FalconThat says answer #2 could (hypothetically) be contradicted in the future if adherence to answer #1 required the President to give a misleading answer. It doesn't say answer #1 by itself contains a contradiction, nor does it say that I believed OP was saying #1 contained a contradiction.
In that case I apologize.
As it turns out, nevurthls (the OP) did explain that he believed answer #1 was, in itself, unclear (not contradictory). This is not what I suggested his intended meaning was. Further, he believes that, by giving an unclear answer to #1, #2 was contradicted (now, not in the future as in my hypothetical). Since he is the one claiming #1 is unclear, I repeat that you should take it up with him.
Once again I apologize for my misunderstanding.
FalconAnd just what rules are these that would prevent, say, Boeing, from launching a probe to Pluto?
Government controls air space over land. Even if I wanted to I couldn't launch a rocket anywhere I wanted to. And yes I used to build and launch rockets, when I started high school I joined a model rocketry club. There we'd build and launch model rockets. Or take flying, except for soar planes and Ultralights you have to have a pilot's license. My uncle built his own plane and he had to have it licensed or certified for flight.
Paul wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and permit the states to prohibit abortion.
Abortion is one issue I disagree with Ron Paul on. However I disagree with every candidate on one issue or another.
FalconSome people oppose Roe v. Wade only because it violated states rights. Paul opposes it for that reason and because he considers abortion to be "the greatest moral issue of our time".
As I said abortion is one of the issues I disagree with, for two reasons. One is I believe in choice and the second is I believe it should be national not state based. However I support him because I have more disagreements with other candidates than I do with him. I'll support him until I know who the Libertarian candidate is, then depending on that candidate's positions on the issues I may support him or her. I support and or vote for the person not the party. I've voted for Democrats, independents, Libertarians, Reform party candidates, and Republicans. Actually I support open primaries not closed ones, I want to be able to vote for the person I think is the best in each party.
I know a lot of Libertarians are all gung-ho about being pro-choice because, superficially, it sounds like less government intrusion.
True but other Libertarians are pro-life. This is one issue in the LP, Libertarian Party, where there's a split. For instance here's some discussions by both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. The LP website is filled with them.
Word games aside, this is an impossible proposition. Pro-choice means "abortions should be legal on demand".
It isn't an impossible proposition. Like I said I'm against abortion personally except to save the live of the woman or maybe rape, I'd never pay for one and don't want government to pay either, but I also believe I don't have the right to tell anyone else they can't have one. Instead I'd prefer to see the need, perceived or necessary, for abortions reduced. For instance I support increasing sex ed and condom use, not just "just say no".
The pro-choice stance requires stripping some human beings of the fundamental right to life.
That's a bias, some don't believe a fetus is a human being until it's viable on it's own. Before then it's a parasite.
The pro-life stance (which can include exceptions for rape/incest, life/serious health, etc.) rests upon the proposition that all human beings have an equal right to life.
Something I ask pro-lifers is if they would allow an abortion if the expectant mother's life is in jeopardy. Many though not all are against any exception, so I point out they in fact are not pro-life because they'd rather let the mother die, and possibly the fetus as well, than let her have an abortion. In the same vein I may also ask if they are anti or pro capital punishment. And usually they are pro capital punishment. I call these people hypocrites.
The stances of the pro-choice and pro-life sides with respect to human rights are mutually exclusive. "I wouldn't get an abortion, but I can't legislate it", or "I think it's morally wrong but I can't impose my morality on you" are not pro-life positions. They are pro-choice and pro-choice only because they rule out the right to life of certain kinds of human beings. That is not pro-life. Merely finding abortion morally problematic or icky is insufficient for being pro-life.
So says you, others say differently.
Falcon