You know, I wish I knew how to code something to solve this.
What linux could use is a new command line tool called "HowTo" or "HowDoI"
Then, it'd take everything after that and use this -k option for man. I have never issued the command "man man".
But a great command like this would / could replace those RTFM comments with a more constructive: howto partition the hard disk howto install java howto change resolution howto find a file howto boot with no gui howto run a service howto stop a service from loading during boot howto uninstall a program
This could even go a step further and open a google page searching that distro's forums / doco.
a final result could be something like "press F1 to search online or press enter to return to shell"
if the user pressed F1, then open the browser and google something like: install a service site:debian.org/doc install a service site:www.gentoo.org/doc/en
Someone should write this; or does something like this already exist?
It could replace the RTFM, and empower the new linux user (like myself) with a command to start from.
Again, I wish I knew how do this on Linux. I could do this in a snap on win32... wink...
However, I think the big tech companies supported and lobbied for these types of changes to the patent law. And if you think about it, the more they get burned by this horrible situation, the more pressure they may be under to push for change.
The little people like you and I have the opportunity to really hold someone like eBay to the fire.
If enough of the big IT players get burned, maybe they'll ironically become the biggest allies in trying to get the patent law redone.
But somehow, I doubt it. But it won't be first time I've been called a dreamer..:)
That assumes an x86 platform, correct? I used to do assembly on the old Apple IIe and its memory layout of the screen was some type of twisted 8 bit maze of memory pages that made drawing a diagonal line in assembly an epic effort.
I didn't say I take Bush's and Gonzalez's word as gospel; I said that I'll personally take a wait and see approach.
I assumed an ardent ACLU supporter would be more familiar with the organizations roots and their political stances. Heck! The ACLU even sided with Rush Limbaugh if you can believe that.
Agreed, today's ACLU is very different from when it was founded; but at the same time many of the political fights the ACLU jumps into they tend to side on the more liberal / socialist side of the argument. But again, not that that is always a bad thing. (On a side note, I find it humorous that many liberals compare Republicans to NAZIs. The NAZI were a socialist party who built support after WWI by providing jobs to its members (HAMAS anyone?) However, the NAZI party of Germany was a socialist party that espoused right-wing ideology. Socially, they stood for liberal thinking (socialism), but only for those of German blood. (Nationalism) thus their name.)
The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)
Not that the ACLU has not done anything good, America is big enough for many viewpoints; and in fact, I would argue, is my country's greatest strength. The ability to cherry pick the best of philosophies to form a amalgam of ideas that is this great experiment.
I think we agree on the NYT. However, I do believe they are left leaning and tend to slant their coverage and stories to favor a leftist viewpoint. It's actually difficult, IMHO, to find a non-partisan source of information on current events today. Sheer volume of sources has made it so that to maintain relevance and circulation, most traditinal information / news outlets have migrated more to sensationalism and away from substance.
In regards to the precedent being bunk, I'll hold judgement on that because IANA "constitutional" L. The two sites you link two are both heavily democrat party / liberal leaning sites. I don't know whose legal opinion they're handing out; which is why I think the whole debate is as hyped as it is because of the upcoming elections. Only time will tell (hopefully).
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the c
Either way, why would anyone lend credence to what the ACLU says - where one of the founders explicitly stated that the goal was a communist state, the elimination of property ownership, and sole control of wealth generation?
And why would anyone not take anything the NYT says with a grain of salt? They stopped being a newspaper a long time ago and are now an editorial publication through and through.
Supposedly, there's lots of precedence for this; I'll wait and see what falls out from this myself.
Opposes post 9/11 anti-terrorism laws "If the U.S. government truly wants its people to be safer and wants terrorist threats to diminish, it must make fundamental changes in its foreign policies . . . particularly its unqualified support for Israel, and its embargo of Iraq, its bombing of Afghanistan, and its actions in Saudi Arabia. [These] continue to anger people throughout the region, and to fertilize the ground where terrorists of the future will take root." - CCR President Michael Ratner
Supports terrorist attorney Lynne Stewart
Named as a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was co-founded in November 1966 by the radical attorneys Morton Stavis, Ben Smith, Arthur Kinoy, and William Kunstler, longtime members of the Communist and radical left. Prior to forming the Center, Kinoy and Kuntsler circulated a lengthy memo calling for the creation of a "new Communist Party," which did not materialize
Represented Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who was convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
Was arrested for providing material support to Rahman's al Qaeda-connected Islamic Group, an Egypt-based terrorist organization
Considers terrorists "liberationists"
Lynne Stewart is a hero of the National Lawyers Guild and a sought-after campus lecturer. While out on bail under indictment for colluding with a terrorist leader, she has been a sought-after speaker for law school audiences who relish her attacks on Attorney General John Ashcroft as a modern-day fascist and on her country for its imperialist and racist policies.
Co-founder Roger Baldwin stated, "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Driving force behind the anti-Patriot Act movement
Named as a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson
Defends Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader and funder Sami Al-Arian
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) characterizes itself as America's "guardian of liberty," ostensibly working to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." "We work," says the ACLU, "also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor."
---------------end site quote-----------------
If you put all politics aside and listen to what these people say they stand for, it's scary.
I think Rachel Meeropol is daughter of ROBERT MEEROPOL who is the son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, the convicted Soviet spies.
I thought Episode I was slow & mildly entertaining, and Episode II only slightly better because of no JarJar.
However, I took them to simply be setting the stage for a 6 movie epic, so be it. Ya know?
If you liked Empire, I think you'll enjoy Sith.
Ever watched Episode I (or was it II) with the alternative audio?
One thing Lucas says is that all the Star Wars films are shot as if they are silent movies. I'd never heard this before and found myself enjoying the movie on a slightly different level.
Some people take it WAY to seriously one way or the other..*sigh*... abnormally love / live it, or make fun of those who do.
But for those who nit pick every detail on either side, I feel like they just can't accept a live action, dopey Saturday morning serial for what it was. (Never mind each installment is 2 hours long and a bunch of eye candy).
It is what it is, for heavens sake! Just enjoy it and have a good time. Don't let your ego or some illusionary sense of higher sensibilities and sophistication ruin something that's really only meant to be fun to watch.
It's a movie, not bi-lateral nuclear disarmament talks... Geez..
You make a reasonable argument, so I wouldn't suggest going and killing yourself to be first in line. Check it out Sunday or maybe next weekend.
If episode 1 was a 1 and Episode 2 was a 3, & 5 was an 9, I put this one around 5 or maybe a 4 if you're totally obsessed with SW, or a 6 if you savor villinous behavior.:)
Have fun, it's a decent ride. I recommend this one in DLP though.
The effects are great, and are in place. They don't overpower the movie.
Some of the the stuff seemed more like an attempt to try and generate a little hype for a future Christmas toy (Obi Wan's mount - You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it and, more to the point, hear it).
However, the transition of ship design and MOST IMPORTANTLY ship INTERIORS to the "old school" look tied it all together.
There are lots of hints the styles of episodes 4,5 & 6, and they only become more frequent as the movie goes on.
Saw it in DLP at a trade screening, and I've got to say, I walked out fulfilled.
Don't take the "younglings" with you unless they know it's all make believe...
Well, you would think the development team would either know how or want to take advantage of client side features.
Their apps basically round trip everything to the server for processing. Never mind how friggin' slow it is, they insist on avoiding doing anything "client side."
And they do *just* enough to make it IE specific.
I totally agreee with you that if your going to do some type of internal app, most people would use all the resources available to them.
I was talking to some industry peers the other day and I boldly (perhaps ignorantly?:) ) said that I thought in the long run, the Cell phone companies stood as the biggest threat to Satellite based radio.
My thinking is that since bandwidth to cell phones is increasing, latency is dropping, and some of the amazing G4 stuff going on outside the US; it's only a matter of time before you can buy an aftermarket in dash radio with a cell phone built in whose primary purpose is receiving streams.
How killer would it be to have all the eclectic streams on the Internet available to you in your vehicle?
I can only imagine the laws they'll try to push through to keep us from being distracted...
I'm stuck with an internal deveopment team making web apps (in.Net) that require IE.. And a bunch of users who will click on anything.
Although exploits were found in Firefox, they were patched rapidly. It's not standard on all our desktops.
I wish there was a "corporate" browser with minimal features to reduce exposure. Sort of like IE lite.
To keep Marvin from destroying the earth because it blocks his view of distant stars of course!!
We can't forget to have a decent supply of carrots and hair clippers, either.
Now, privatized probes could be launched and we land could be surveyed and claims issued.
Seriously, this could be usefull for a manned mission. Landmarks may be hard to recognize If anyone has been watching NASA TV, there's a killer animation about how they launch supplies and a return vehicle in stages. Very neat.
Re:Is it just me...
on
Linux Unwired
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
On the same vein. My wife kept asking me to stand up WiFi @ home. I ended up getting the Microsoft 700 series (which they're not going to make anymore) and I must say I don't know what took me so long.
I love being outside by the pool and taking care of a backlog of emails or simply using my Mod points.
But speaking of printing; we have an upstairs game room thats my wife's office. My office is directly below hers. Anyway, the cats LOVE to lay on her desk and look out the window at the trees. I get a HUGE kick when I print something and you'd think someone had thrown teargas into the upstairs room and several cats come barrelling down the stairs with their hair firmly perpendicular to their skin.
So, no damages nor a ruling can even be granted in a claim of falsity exist without 'special damages'? In other words, one cannot exist without the other, right?
So, if SCO doesn't come back in 30 days with a valid 'special damages' claim, the whole thing goes flat, eh?
Thanks for the insight, and I'll pass on the disdainful comments...
This paragraph from Groklaw says the case> is not dismissed.
Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage, but he clearly has a leaning, and it isn't in SCO's direction. It's just that on a motion to dismiss, the judge is required to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the party whose case might be dismissed, the non-moving party, and on the Motion to Dismiss, that would be SCO, and as a matter of law, he can't grant the motion to dismiss in totality, because while "Novell has raised persuasive arguments as to whether a sufficient writing exists" without more evidence, he can't rule on the sufficiency of the agreement yet.
The summary on Groklaw doesn't say the case is dismissed either, only motions.
Some say it's dismissed and use this to "prove" it:
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.
IANAL, but from what I can tell, it looks like:
a) SCO was made a motion to remand (move) the case to state court. That was DENIED. Did they have to make this motion because of rules?
b) Novell made a motion to dismiss SCO's claim of "special damages." This was UPHELD, but SCO was given 30 days to "try again."
c) Novell made a motion to dismiss SCO's claim of falsity and it was DENIED.
According to the Groklaw link, it also says:
Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage, but he clearly has a leaning, and it isn't in SCO's direction. It's just that on a motion to dismiss, the judge is required to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the party whose case might be dismissed, the non-moving party, and on the Motion to Dismiss, that would be SCO, and as a matter of law, he can't grant the motion to dismiss in totality, because while "Novell has raised persuasive arguments as to whether a sufficient writing exists" without more evidence, he can't rule on the sufficiency of the agreement yet.
So, it's not dismissed in wholefrom what I can tell. In other words, it's not over yet.
Only certain motions were dismissed...
It helps if you think of motions as mini suits or rounds in a boxing match.
SCO 1 and Novell 1 on Novell's motions of dismissal (falcity and 'special damages').
I've heard arguments on the motion to remand. One being that SCO wants a federal venue, so it's a victory? Haven't seen anyone present a case as to why they wanted to remand the case to a state court.
Also little knows is, I believe, that it originially read the persuit of wealth, but they changed that to happiness.
I'm not sure who would think that right gave endowes a citizen with the right to "do whatever they want" in pursuit of their happiness.
In my eyes, there's no difference, if any, between the two.
If I have a right to experience happiness, then I have a right to find it. To find it, I have the right to do different things such as be a farmer, be a programmer, be a dentist, or be a lawyer. I would say that finding those things in life that bring you personal satisfaction and happiness must be found. Here's an interesting article you might enjoy. It's here
Here's a great quote: Those who would supplant the pursuit of such a democracy for a "free market" philosophy of greed, which, like a cancer, would kill the host body that gives it life, have "no business here at all."
In other words, I agree with what your saying, but I don't agree with going the to the other extreme.
Freedom of choice and the ability to earn a fair wage (determined by competition in the marketplace) in any field of profession I choose (which I need to put thought into, eh? There may be too many lawyers to earn a living...) is extremely important to me, and I believe all people deserve the same. To pay for a home, to worship where and how I please, a decent education for myself and my family, to provide a bright future for my children, and to; in general; realize the harmonious balance whose end result is hapiness is, ultimately, what Jefferson meant. I do not, however, think it meant to step on the backs of the downtrodden in order to gain wealth that'd make Soloman blush. If great wealth can be earned by providing a good product or service; and can be created and sold with ethics and morals; more power to that person.
This is one of the most succint expressions of the philosophy that makes American culture distasteful to many I have seen for some time.
Yes, it is a succinct illustration of what is bad not just of American culture, but of the (IMHO) the healthcare industry as a whole. I understand what you're saying is this is why American culture is found distasteful by many, and you didn't say necessarily by you. So when I say you, I really mean the reader in general... cool?
Deadly, widespread diseases like cancer and AIDS are extremely difficult to cure and require huge amounts of money and manpower. Who's money and who's manpower? Yours and mine? What if you where conscripted by your government to work on it?
If I could choose to allocate my taxes, I would allocate money (in no particular order) to space, medical research, public works, military, and civil services.
Americans, as a nation, tend to require some type of motivation to institute dramatic change. (Pearl Harbor for example) But more to the point, Americans enjoy liberty and freedom of choice. I believe that most of the people in the world want the same things. A peaceful, happy existence. A bright future for their children. And happiness and blessings for their fellow man. I'm sure this isn't everything, but I'll use these three for now. I also believe this is why Americans are considered uncaring and unknowledgable when it comes to world affairs. The reason being, from their micro perspective, these three issues are mostly fulfilled. Americans are an extremely generous people as a whole.
But to your statement that the philosophy that someone would expect some type of reward for their effort as being distateful seems somewhat narrow minded in to me. Is it because a cure for cancer was used as a dramatic illustration? Do you not expect something for the efforts you put forth in everyday life?
Hypothetically, let's say that a cure for cancer is found. This cure requires a manufacturing process that costs $50 a dose, and they produce 100,000,000 doses. However, let's say that 40,000,000,000 dollars is spent finding this cure. That makes the actual cost per dose $450. Then you have an additional $25 in labor, shipping, etc. Our hypothetical cure would cost $475 a dose. What if all these numbers are multiplied by 10 or 100?
The point of all this is this: To get the right person to find a cure, that person has to have a high moral calling to motivate themselves to dedicate their life to the effort. If you have a brilliant, gifted person who, for example, believe more strongly in solving hunger through genetic manipulation of plants; what is it that will sway them to focus on our Cancer cure?
It's all about motivation.
That's why many to say they find American culture distateful simply don't understand Americans. If their perception of Americans comes from what our leaders do or what they see on television and in the news, then their woefully ignorant of who Americans really are as a people.
I agree with you that this occurs, but it saddens me that it happens both ways. But it's not just Americans, it's human nature. It's a firm believe by anyone that their way of life is the right way of life, and anyone elses is wrong.
Sometimes I wonder why nations who's people are starving in droves let this happen. Many point outward or fight amongst themselves. Why don't they focus themselves, as a people, to the betterment of their nation and everyone within it. Build irrigation systems, grow grain, feed each other, hold elections, and encourage liberty to their population?
Is it because the neighboring country won't allow access to water? Is it because the family that's been in control for 5 generations doesn't want to relenquish power? Is it because they believe that a different race of people amongst their population should be slaughtered wholesale?
Ultimately, it's horrible and ugly across the globe. But I would rather live in a co
Totally wrong. Completely and utterly false statemenent.
Correct that the huge profits represents a vaccuum in the market place, and also correct that a market works because of competition.
The whole point of selling products or services for a profit is to increase the financial health of a company. This means people get paid, they can retire, they can invest and create more jobs, etc.
In America, we have a right to profit from our labors. This is because we have the right to pursue happiness, and we're capitalists.
Perhaps you live in a socialist nation?
It's an effort / reward system here. If I put in the effort to find a cure for cancer and actually do it, there are great rewards for accomplishing this feat. Some may argue that the cure should be given away for the betterment of mankind. Although noble in thought, that type of thinking would probably discourage someone from working on a cure in the fist place. This is a macro statement, and doesn't account for many who make humanitarian efforts their life's work, but it holds true for most scenarios. In America, at least, each individual has certain rights. Personal ownership of land and assets is one of those. In order to acquire those, you must have money. To have money, you have to earn it somehow. Lets say you put a $10 valuation on every hour of your time. If you earned a 1:1 valuation for each hour you spent at work, you'd have to work 24 hours a day to make rent and pay for food, etc. But most people don't.
They make a determination of this is how much they have to have each month for shelter, food, savings, and luxuries (car, tv, etc.). Assuming you want to work a 40 hour work week, you need to make a 3.x:1 ratio for each hour at work. So you're making a little profit there, eh?
Some people are exceptional at doing this and earn ratios in excess of 100:1. Why? Because they perform a service or have the knowledge to maximize the investment by someone else. In the above example, you want to save some money. But assume you only acheive a maximum 4:1 ratio in your lifetime. You therefore need to take the savings portion of your income and put it somewhere where it too can earn an income. So you invest it. If you don't, you're going to be living of government sponsored retirement and when you die they're going to bill your children and family members (this really happens). So you give Joe your money because he has the capability to make your savings earn a ratio of 2:1. You pay him x dollars. But if Mary can make your savings earn at 5:1, she's more valuable, eh? She could do this for herself, but you would like her to do it for you. How can you make it worth her time?
By increasing her personal income ratio. I.E. You pay her.
The cycle goes on and on. This is why Tax Cuts are proven to spur the American economy. When people have money they buy things and pay people for services. If the Government was in 100% control of everything and you were alloted your 800 sq foot apartment, your 386 computer running windows 98, and your dial up internet connection and thats all you could ever have in life, you'd be ok with this?!?!
I would encourage you to value your own time and your own efforts more.
There's a joke about a girl who was going to college and told her Republican father that she was a democrat and believe in the redistribution of wealth. He asked how school was going and she bemoaned how hard she worked but had a 4.0 GPA. He asked how her friend was doing Mary and she said Mary was barely making it with a 2.0 but was popular and had lots of friends. The father asked the girl why she didn't go to the dean and have 1.0 taken from her 4.0 and given to Mary. The girl cried out about how that would be unfair because she sacrificed and worked hard for that 4.0! The father said "Welcome to the republican party."
Although silly and politically slanted, this speaks to the point. If you want more, earn it. If you don't, don't. But one must earn enough not to have to depend on others for their very existence. If you put yourself in this situation, you might as well be a slave or an endentured servant.
I agree wholeheartedly with many of your comments. However, I would take a more "half full" perspective outlook on the situation, I guess.
I think people point at Haliburton and leap to a conclusion that they're lining their pockets. From what I've been able to find, there's really only a handful of companies in the world capable of fulfilling the Iraqi contract. Seimans being another, but they're in Germany. Since they didn't join the international cooalition for the war in Iraq...
I think the people in the UN, France, and Germany were lining their pockets in the Food for Oil scandal. At least, that's what it's looking like.
A lot of the speculation about Mr. Bush, Haliburton, etc. is just that, speculation. However, I would like to know more about Mr. Cheney's energy commission meetings and exactly why it was that Haliburton "won" the bid. I have questions there.
True, political positioning is always relative, but I think it's scary that conspiracy theories have become left leaning mainstream.
Like I've posted before, I think people are generally good people. I don't believe Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry (or Mr. Moore for that matter) are necessarily evil people.
I prefer to put things in a positive and good light until the facts prove otherwise.
My God. I wonder what they thought of President Regan then?
Bush is socially a moderate in many ways, but he's for sure very hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Especially after Sept. 11. Too bad we didn't stay on top of things in the 90's. Neither side is right actually. The left wanted a "feel good" foreign policy, the right wanted a "big stick" foreign policy; and the intelligence community lost out either way. At least, that's how it looks to me.
See my other post here in response to others. Best,
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I wish I knew how to code something to solve this.
What linux could use is a new command line tool called "HowTo" or "HowDoI"
Then, it'd take everything after that and use this -k option for man. I have never issued the command "man man".
But a great command like this would / could replace those RTFM comments with a more constructive:
howto partition the hard disk
howto install java
howto change resolution
howto find a file
howto boot with no gui
howto run a service
howto stop a service from loading during boot
howto uninstall a program
This could even go a step further and open a google page searching that distro's forums / doco.
a final result could be something like "press F1 to search online or press enter to return to shell"
if the user pressed F1, then open the browser and google something like:
install a service site:debian.org/doc
install a service site:www.gentoo.org/doc/en
Someone should write this; or does something like this already exist?
It could replace the RTFM, and empower the new linux user (like myself) with a command to start from.
Again, I wish I knew how do this on Linux. I could do this in a snap on win32... wink...
I have to agree, SW patents are pure BS.
:)
However, I think the big tech companies supported and lobbied for these types of changes to the patent law. And if you think about it, the more they get burned by this horrible situation, the more pressure they may be under to push for change.
The little people like you and I have the opportunity to really hold someone like eBay to the fire.
If enough of the big IT players get burned, maybe they'll ironically become the biggest allies in trying to get the patent law redone.
But somehow, I doubt it. But it won't be first time I've been called a dreamer..
That assumes an x86 platform, correct? I used to do assembly on the old Apple IIe and its memory layout of the screen was some type of twisted 8 bit maze of memory pages that made drawing a diagonal line in assembly an epic effort.
Ah the good old days... wink
I didn't say I take Bush's and Gonzalez's word as gospel; I said that I'll personally take a wait and see approach.
I assumed an ardent ACLU supporter would be more familiar with the organizations roots and their political stances. Heck! The ACLU even sided with Rush Limbaugh if you can believe that.
Agreed, today's ACLU is very different from when it was founded; but at the same time many of the political fights the ACLU jumps into they tend to side on the more liberal / socialist side of the argument. But again, not that that is always a bad thing. (On a side note, I find it humorous that many liberals compare Republicans to NAZIs. The NAZI were a socialist party who built support after WWI by providing jobs to its members (HAMAS anyone?) However, the NAZI party of Germany was a socialist party that espoused right-wing ideology. Socially, they stood for liberal thinking (socialism), but only for those of German blood. (Nationalism) thus their name.)
My point being, just as one can go too far to the right; so they can also go too far to the left.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm
But, to site the quote:
The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-47,GGLG:en&q=aclu+%22COM MUNISM+is+the+goal%22+%22Roger+Baldwin%22
Not that the ACLU has not done anything good, America is big enough for many viewpoints; and in fact, I would argue, is my country's greatest strength. The ability to cherry pick the best of philosophies to form a amalgam of ideas that is this great experiment.
I think we agree on the NYT. However, I do believe they are left leaning and tend to slant their coverage and stories to favor a leftist viewpoint. It's actually difficult, IMHO, to find a non-partisan source of information on current events today. Sheer volume of sources has made it so that to maintain relevance and circulation, most traditinal information / news outlets have migrated more to sensationalism and away from substance.
In regards to the precedent being bunk, I'll hold judgement on that because IANA "constitutional" L. The two sites you link two are both heavily democrat party / liberal leaning sites. I don't know whose legal opinion they're handing out; which is why I think the whole debate is as hyped as it is because of the upcoming elections. Only time will tell (hopefully).
But to provide perhaps a more authoritive source to compare to the two you provided:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110007703
The Wall Street Journal:
--- Begin WSJ quote ---
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the c
Either way, why would anyone lend credence to what the ACLU says - where one of the founders explicitly stated that the goal was a communist state, the elimination of property ownership, and sole control of wealth generation?
And why would anyone not take anything the NYT says with a grain of salt? They stopped being a newspaper a long time ago and are now an editorial publication through and through.
Supposedly, there's lots of precedence for this; I'll wait and see what falls out from this myself.
Ok, so while many cheer this; ask yourself this question. Who is it exactly that are bringing forth the lawsuits and why?
---------------site quote-----------------
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp ?grpid=6148
leading institution of the "Legal Left"
Founded by pro-Castro radicals
Opposes post 9/11 anti-terrorism laws
"If the U.S. government truly wants its people to be safer and wants terrorist threats to diminish, it must make fundamental changes in its foreign policies . . . particularly its unqualified support for Israel, and its embargo of Iraq, its bombing of Afghanistan, and its actions in Saudi Arabia. [These] continue to anger people throughout the region, and to fertilize the ground where terrorists of the future will take root." - CCR President Michael Ratner
Supports terrorist attorney Lynne Stewart
Named as a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was co-founded in November 1966 by the radical attorneys Morton Stavis, Ben Smith, Arthur Kinoy, and William Kunstler, longtime members of the Communist and radical left. Prior to forming the Center, Kinoy and Kuntsler circulated a lengthy memo calling for the creation of a "new Communist Party," which did not materialize
LYNNE STEWART
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfil e.asp?indid=861
Self-proclaimed "radical activist attorney"
Represented Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who was convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
Was arrested for providing material support to Rahman's al Qaeda-connected Islamic Group, an Egypt-based terrorist organization
Considers terrorists "liberationists"
Lynne Stewart is a hero of the National Lawyers Guild and a sought-after campus lecturer. While out on bail under indictment for colluding with a terrorist leader, she has been a sought-after speaker for law school audiences who relish her attacks on Attorney General John Ashcroft as a modern-day fascist and on her country for its imperialist and racist policies.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp ?grpid=6145
Co-founder Roger Baldwin stated, "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Driving force behind the anti-Patriot Act movement
Named as a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson
Defends Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader and funder Sami Al-Arian
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) characterizes itself as America's "guardian of liberty," ostensibly working to "defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." "We work," says the ACLU, "also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor."
---------------end site quote-----------------
If you put all politics aside and listen to what these people say they stand for, it's scary.
I think Rachel Meeropol is daughter of ROBERT MEEROPOL who is the son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, the convicted Soviet spies.
What Exhibitor do you work for that doesn't screen their prints for defects so they can call in for a new print from the distributor?
I ask because I work in the same industry.
We screen our prints, ESPECIALLY ones running in our larger houses.
I thought Episode I was slow & mildly entertaining, and Episode II only slightly better because of no JarJar.
:)
However, I took them to simply be setting the stage for a 6 movie epic, so be it. Ya know?
If you liked Empire, I think you'll enjoy Sith.
Ever watched Episode I (or was it II) with the alternative audio?
One thing Lucas says is that all the Star Wars films are shot as if they are silent movies. I'd never heard this before and found myself enjoying the movie on a slightly different level.
Some people take it WAY to seriously one way or the other..*sigh*... abnormally love / live it, or make fun of those who do.
But for those who nit pick every detail on either side, I feel like they just can't accept a live action, dopey Saturday morning serial for what it was. (Never mind each installment is 2 hours long and a bunch of eye candy).
It is what it is, for heavens sake! Just enjoy it and have a good time. Don't let your ego or some illusionary sense of higher sensibilities and sophistication ruin something that's really only meant to be fun to watch.
It's a movie, not bi-lateral nuclear disarmament talks... Geez..
You make a reasonable argument, so I wouldn't suggest going and killing yourself to be first in line. Check it out Sunday or maybe next weekend.
If episode 1 was a 1 and Episode 2 was a 3, & 5 was an 9, I put this one around 5 or maybe a 4 if you're totally obsessed with SW, or a 6 if you savor villinous behavior.
Have fun, it's a decent ride. I recommend this one in DLP though.
I will say this:
It is, IMHO, easily the best of the last three.
The effects are great, and are in place. They don't overpower the movie.
Some of the the stuff seemed more like an attempt to try and generate a little hype for a future Christmas toy (Obi Wan's mount - You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it and, more to the point, hear it).
However, the transition of ship design and MOST IMPORTANTLY ship INTERIORS to the "old school" look tied it all together.
There are lots of hints the styles of episodes 4,5 & 6, and they only become more frequent as the movie goes on.
Saw it in DLP at a trade screening, and I've got to say, I walked out fulfilled.
Don't take the "younglings" with you unless they know it's all make believe...
Best,
Well, you would think the development team would either know how or want to take advantage of client side features.
Their apps basically round trip everything to the server for processing. Never mind how friggin' slow it is, they insist on avoiding doing anything "client side."
And they do *just* enough to make it IE specific.
I totally agreee with you that if your going to do some type of internal app, most people would use all the resources available to them.
Not where I work, though. Drives me nuts. ARG!
I was talking to some industry peers the other day and I boldly (perhaps ignorantly? :) ) said that I thought in the long run, the Cell phone companies stood as the biggest threat to Satellite based radio.
My thinking is that since bandwidth to cell phones is increasing, latency is dropping, and some of the amazing G4 stuff going on outside the US; it's only a matter of time before you can buy an aftermarket in dash radio with a cell phone built in whose primary purpose is receiving streams.
How killer would it be to have all the eclectic streams on the Internet available to you in your vehicle?
I can only imagine the laws they'll try to push through to keep us from being distracted...
I'm stuck with an internal deveopment team making web apps (in .Net) that require IE.. And a bunch of users who will click on anything.
Although exploits were found in Firefox, they were patched rapidly. It's not standard on all our desktops.
I wish there was a "corporate" browser with minimal features to reduce exposure. Sort of like IE lite.
To keep Marvin from destroying the earth because it blocks his view of distant stars of course!! We can't forget to have a decent supply of carrots and hair clippers, either.
Now, privatized probes could be launched and we land could be surveyed and claims issued.
Seriously, this could be usefull for a manned mission. Landmarks may be hard to recognize
If anyone has been watching NASA TV, there's a killer animation about how they launch supplies and a return vehicle in stages.
Very neat.
On the same vein. My wife kept asking me to stand up WiFi @ home. I ended up getting the Microsoft 700 series (which they're not going to make anymore) and I must say I don't know what took me so long.
I love being outside by the pool and taking care of a backlog of emails or simply using my Mod points.
But speaking of printing; we have an upstairs game room thats my wife's office. My office is directly below hers. Anyway, the cats LOVE to lay on her desk and look out the window at the trees.
I get a HUGE kick when I print something and you'd think someone had thrown teargas into the upstairs room and several cats come barrelling down the stairs with their hair firmly perpendicular to their skin.
Great fun.
:)
I think I see.
So, no damages nor a ruling can even be granted in a claim of falsity exist without 'special damages'?
In other words, one cannot exist without the other, right?
So, if SCO doesn't come back in 30 days with a valid 'special damages' claim, the whole thing goes flat, eh?
Thanks for the insight, and I'll pass on the disdainful comments...
Where at? I must have missed that or something
This paragraph from Groklaw says the case> is not dismissed.
Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage, but he clearly has a leaning, and it isn't in SCO's direction. It's just that on a motion to dismiss, the judge is required to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the party whose case might be dismissed, the non-moving party, and on the Motion to Dismiss, that would be SCO, and as a matter of law, he can't grant the motion to dismiss in totality, because while "Novell has raised persuasive arguments as to whether a sufficient writing exists" without more evidence, he can't rule on the sufficiency of the agreement yet.
The summary on Groklaw doesn't say the case is dismissed either, only motions.
What did I miss?
Some say it's dismissed and use this to "prove" it:
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.
IANAL, but from what I can tell, it looks like:
a) SCO was made a motion to remand (move) the case to state court. That was DENIED. Did they have to make this motion because of rules?
b) Novell made a motion to dismiss SCO's claim of "special damages." This was UPHELD, but SCO was given 30 days to "try again."
c) Novell made a motion to dismiss SCO's claim of falsity and it was DENIED.
According to the Groklaw link, it also says:
Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage, but he clearly has a leaning, and it isn't in SCO's direction. It's just that on a motion to dismiss, the judge is required to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the party whose case might be dismissed, the non-moving party, and on the Motion to Dismiss, that would be SCO, and as a matter of law, he can't grant the motion to dismiss in totality, because while "Novell has raised persuasive arguments as to whether a sufficient writing exists" without more evidence, he can't rule on the sufficiency of the agreement yet.
So, it's not dismissed in whole from what I can tell. In other words, it's not over yet.
Only certain motions were dismissed...
It helps if you think of motions as mini suits or rounds in a boxing match.
SCO 1 and Novell 1 on Novell's motions of dismissal (falcity and 'special damages').
I've heard arguments on the motion to remand.
One being that SCO wants a federal venue, so it's a victory?
Haven't seen anyone present a case as to why they wanted to remand the case to a state court.
Am I reading this right?
Also little knows is, I believe, that it originially read the persuit of wealth, but they changed that to happiness.
I'm not sure who would think that right gave endowes a citizen with the right to "do whatever they want" in pursuit of their happiness.
In my eyes, there's no difference, if any, between the two.
If I have a right to experience happiness, then I have a right to find it.
To find it, I have the right to do different things such as be a farmer, be a programmer, be a dentist, or be a lawyer.
I would say that finding those things in life that bring you personal satisfaction and happiness must be found.
Here's an interesting article you might enjoy. It's here
Here's a great quote: Those who would supplant the pursuit of such a democracy for a "free market" philosophy of greed, which, like a cancer, would kill the host body that gives it life, have "no business here at all."
In other words, I agree with what your saying, but I don't agree with going the to the other extreme.
Freedom of choice and the ability to earn a fair wage (determined by competition in the marketplace) in any field of profession I choose (which I need to put thought into, eh? There may be too many lawyers to earn a living...) is extremely important to me, and I believe all people deserve the same.
To pay for a home, to worship where and how I please, a decent education for myself and my family, to provide a bright future for my children, and to; in general; realize the harmonious balance whose end result is hapiness is, ultimately, what Jefferson meant.
I do not, however, think it meant to step on the backs of the downtrodden in order to gain wealth that'd make Soloman blush. If great wealth can be earned by providing a good product or service; and can be created and sold with ethics and morals; more power to that person.
Great point, though.
This is one of the most succint expressions of the philosophy that makes American culture distasteful to many I have seen for some time.
Yes, it is a succinct illustration of what is bad not just of American culture, but of the (IMHO) the healthcare industry as a whole. I understand what you're saying is this is why American culture is found distasteful by many, and you didn't say necessarily by you. So when I say you, I really mean the reader in general... cool?
Deadly, widespread diseases like cancer and AIDS are extremely difficult to cure and require huge amounts of money and manpower. Who's money and who's manpower? Yours and mine? What if you where conscripted by your government to work on it?
If I could choose to allocate my taxes, I would allocate money (in no particular order) to space, medical research, public works, military, and civil services.
Americans, as a nation, tend to require some type of motivation to institute dramatic change. (Pearl Harbor for example)
But more to the point, Americans enjoy liberty and freedom of choice. I believe that most of the people in the world want the same things. A peaceful, happy existence. A bright future for their children. And happiness and blessings for their fellow man. I'm sure this isn't everything, but I'll use these three for now. I also believe this is why Americans are considered uncaring and unknowledgable when it comes to world affairs.
The reason being, from their micro perspective, these three issues are mostly fulfilled. Americans are an extremely generous people as a whole.
But to your statement that the philosophy that someone would expect some type of reward for their effort as being distateful seems somewhat narrow minded in to me.
Is it because a cure for cancer was used as a dramatic illustration? Do you not expect something for the efforts you put forth in everyday life?
Hypothetically, let's say that a cure for cancer is found. This cure requires a manufacturing process that costs $50 a dose, and they produce 100,000,000 doses. However, let's say that 40,000,000,000 dollars is spent finding this cure. That makes the actual cost per dose $450. Then you have an additional $25 in labor, shipping, etc.
Our hypothetical cure would cost $475 a dose. What if all these numbers are multiplied by 10 or 100?
The point of all this is this: To get the right person to find a cure, that person has to have a high moral calling to motivate themselves to dedicate their life to the effort. If you have a brilliant, gifted person who, for example, believe more strongly in solving hunger through genetic manipulation of plants; what is it that will sway them to focus on our Cancer cure?
It's all about motivation.
That's why many to say they find American culture distateful simply don't understand Americans. If their perception of Americans comes from what our leaders do or what they see on television and in the news, then their woefully ignorant of who Americans really are as a people.
I agree with you that this occurs, but it saddens me that it happens both ways. But it's not just Americans, it's human nature. It's a firm believe by anyone that their way of life is the right way of life, and anyone elses is wrong.
Sometimes I wonder why nations who's people are starving in droves let this happen. Many point outward or fight amongst themselves.
Why don't they focus themselves, as a people, to the betterment of their nation and everyone within it. Build irrigation systems, grow grain, feed each other, hold elections, and encourage liberty to their population?
Is it because the neighboring country won't allow access to water? Is it because the family that's been in control for 5 generations doesn't want to relenquish power? Is it because they believe that a different race of people amongst their population should be slaughtered wholesale?
Ultimately, it's horrible and ugly across the globe. But I would rather live in a co
Ah.. good point. I see what he or she was saying.
:)
Perhaps a proper statement would be you are not guranteed a profit for your products or services...
However, if you run a company in America and it's running at a loss, you get tax breaks for a limited time. Reimbursements?
I guess a Tax Break can't be considered a profit.. <wink>.. Sorry Mr. IRS.. I won't do that again.. LOL!!!
Nobody as a "right" to profit
Totally wrong. Completely and utterly false statemenent.
Correct that the huge profits represents a vaccuum in the market place, and also correct that a market works because of competition.
The whole point of selling products or services for a profit is to increase the financial health of a company. This means people get paid, they can retire, they can invest and create more jobs, etc.
In America, we have a right to profit from our labors. This is because we have the right to pursue happiness, and we're capitalists.
Perhaps you live in a socialist nation?
It's an effort / reward system here. If I put in the effort to find a cure for cancer and actually do it, there are great rewards for accomplishing this feat.
Some may argue that the cure should be given away for the betterment of mankind. Although noble in thought, that type of thinking would probably discourage someone from working on a cure in the fist place.
This is a macro statement, and doesn't account for many who make humanitarian efforts their life's work, but it holds true for most scenarios.
In America, at least, each individual has certain rights. Personal ownership of land and assets is one of those. In order to acquire those, you must have money. To have money, you have to earn it somehow. Lets say you put a $10 valuation on every hour of your time. If you earned a 1:1 valuation for each hour you spent at work, you'd have to work 24 hours a day to make rent and pay for food, etc. But most people don't.
They make a determination of this is how much they have to have each month for shelter, food, savings, and luxuries (car, tv, etc.). Assuming you want to work a 40 hour work week, you need to make a 3.x:1 ratio for each hour at work. So you're making a little profit there, eh?
Some people are exceptional at doing this and earn ratios in excess of 100:1.
Why?
Because they perform a service or have the knowledge to maximize the investment by someone else.
In the above example, you want to save some money. But assume you only acheive a maximum 4:1 ratio in your lifetime. You therefore need to take the savings portion of your income and put it somewhere where it too can earn an income. So you invest it. If you don't, you're going to be living of government sponsored retirement and when you die they're going to bill your children and family members (this really happens).
So you give Joe your money because he has the capability to make your savings earn a ratio of 2:1. You pay him x dollars. But if Mary can make your savings earn at 5:1, she's more valuable, eh?
She could do this for herself, but you would like her to do it for you. How can you make it worth her time?
By increasing her personal income ratio. I.E. You pay her.
The cycle goes on and on. This is why Tax Cuts are proven to spur the American economy. When people have money they buy things and pay people for services. If the Government was in 100% control of everything and you were alloted your 800 sq foot apartment, your 386 computer running windows 98, and your dial up internet connection and thats all you could ever have in life, you'd be ok with this?!?!
I would encourage you to value your own time and your own efforts more.
There's a joke about a girl who was going to college and told her Republican father that she was a democrat and believe in the redistribution of wealth. He asked how school was going and she bemoaned how hard she worked but had a 4.0 GPA. He asked how her friend was doing Mary and she said Mary was barely making it with a 2.0 but was popular and had lots of friends.
The father asked the girl why she didn't go to the dean and have 1.0 taken from her 4.0 and given to Mary. The girl cried out about how that would be unfair because she sacrificed and worked hard for that 4.0!
The father said "Welcome to the republican party."
Although silly and politically slanted, this speaks to the point.
If you want more, earn it. If you don't, don't. But one must earn enough not to have to depend on others for their very existence.
If you put yourself in this situation, you might as well be a slave or an endentured servant.
Hope this helps!
I agree wholeheartedly with many of your comments.
However, I would take a more "half full" perspective outlook on the situation, I guess.
I think people point at Haliburton and leap to a conclusion that they're lining their pockets. From what I've been able to find, there's really only a handful of companies in the world capable of fulfilling the Iraqi contract.
Seimans being another, but they're in Germany. Since they didn't join the international cooalition for the war in Iraq...
I think the people in the UN, France, and Germany were lining their pockets in the Food for Oil scandal. At least, that's what it's looking like.
A lot of the speculation about Mr. Bush, Haliburton, etc. is just that, speculation.
However, I would like to know more about Mr. Cheney's energy commission meetings and exactly why it was that Haliburton "won" the bid. I have questions there.
True, political positioning is always relative, but I think it's scary that conspiracy theories have become left leaning mainstream.
Like I've posted before, I think people are generally good people. I don't believe Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry (or Mr. Moore for that matter) are necessarily evil people.
I prefer to put things in a positive and good light until the facts prove otherwise.
You might want to read my response post here.
Best,
My God. I wonder what they thought of President Regan then?
Bush is socially a moderate in many ways, but he's for sure very hawkish when it comes to foreign policy.
Especially after Sept. 11.
Too bad we didn't stay on top of things in the 90's. Neither side is right actually.
The left wanted a "feel good" foreign policy, the right wanted a "big stick" foreign policy; and the intelligence community lost out either way.
At least, that's how it looks to me.
See my other post here in response to others.
Best,
Excellent point.
I agree with you, and if you read my post here I think you'll see I agree with you.
My point of the post was that I didn't think it was a documentary and that considering the source, it probably needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Best,