Which falsely labels pFoo as a pointer and Bar as not a pointer, when the opposite is true? How's THAT for confusing. The problem with encoding type name with the variable is that it now means there are two seperate ways where you "define" the type - the one for the compiler's benefit and the one for the human reader's benefit. Since they are totally independant of each other, they can disagree - leading to no end of confusion. I much prefer coming up with a solution where the human-readable version and the compiler-readable version are guaranteed to actually agree. If that cannot be done, then you are better off forcing the human reader to look at the same thing the compiler looks at, rather than inventing a fake mnemonic that has no guarantee of being correct after several hands have been involved mantaining the code.
The only such naming mnemonic I use is ones that label the storage scope, as in g_foo means "global foo", and s_foo means "local stack foo", and h_foo means "heap foo". This mnemonic just helps the reader figure out where to look for the declaration of the variable, without telling him what that declaration actually is.
His example doesn't properly illustrate the problem. the problem is when the first parameter is the pointer, as follows:
int * foo, bar To the typical novice C programmer, that looks like it means "foo and bar are both of type 'int *', when in fact it means "foo is int *, while bar is just int" That is confusing. One thing I would have liked to have seen done differently is to use actual words for the different numerical formats. I'd rather see something like: hex$ff80 rather than 0xff80. This is especially annoying with octal. It is VERY counter-intuative that:
010 == 8 when it looks like "ten' with an irrelevant preceeding zero. This is bad because it conflicts with the mathematical meaning of prepending a zero, which is that it means nothing.
And if they invented types for octal, and hex, why didn't they do binary while they were at it? that would have been quite useful and make some things a lot more legible.
As far as assigning to const being just a warning, that sounds like something compiler-dependant. It really should be enforced more strongly than that.
ideally, any computer counting system has to come with a paper trail that the voter can verify by eye. I like the system we use here in Wisconsin. It's simple, easy, and fairly hard to spoof. You have a large thick paper ballot, with big writing for people with bad vision. You use a pen in the booth to fill in the arrow next to the choices you want. Then *you* personally carry the form to a reader machine, that accepts the form face-down (so you don't have to show anyone what you marked), and electronically tallies your votes right there, AND drops your paper copy inside in a locked box. The paper copies are kept around in case there's a dispute (If a recount is called for , the paper ballots are used and the electronic counts are ignored. The paper ballots are not disposed of until several weeks later when everyone agrees to the results of the election.)
The machine doesn't tell you who you voted for (that would ruin anonymity, since people are watching), but it does give a green light and a beep if your form was understood, or a red light and a rejection if it was not. If it was not understood( because of, say, a stray pen mark that made you vote for two candidates), then you find out RIGHT AWAY that it was misread, and you have a chance to take another blank ballot, go back to a booth, and redo your vote. This way you never, ever, have to guess the voter's intent if the ballot isn't machine readable. The voter himself gets immediate feedback right at the polling station if the ballot cannot be read.
About the only thing missing that I would like to see is some form of receipt the machine prints, that the voter can rip off, look at, and then hit a "confirm" button before the machine counts his vote. That way if the machine misread his vote, he can see on the reciept that it isn't what he wanted. The receipts would have to be something only the voter sees (to preserve anonymity). If the voter doesn't take the receipt, it should be dropped in a trash box or shredded so the next voter doesn't see it.
The thing about that system is that it provides BOTH an accurate paper trail, and a computerized counting system, that makes sub-tallys at the voting station, and allows for the user to have instant feedback at the polling station. In the infamous Bush/Gore election, the Wisconsin vote was as close a margin as the Florida vote. But it was believed accurate and no recall was called for.
Any fair system cannot get rid of the paper. The paper is the proof, should anyone dispute the results.
Who can't use current paper systems. People with limited sight.
Who can't use current paper systems. People with limited or no english reading ability.
Who can't use current paper systems.
There is no need to try to make the computer voting system perfect *except* in its reliability and counting. For other problems such as you mention, the solution has nothing to do with the system used - it is a high level solution (like having someone else help you with your vote, JUST like they have to do today with paper systems.)
Too bad real life isn't like the Sims where I could drop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold into SCO's headquarters with some sawed-off shotguns and enough ammo to level the alamo.
That's too quick an end for them. Just have them walk upstairs, and then delete the stairs. Make sure all the food and toilet facilities are on the ground floor. Sit back and enjoy their long demise.
Anything that does not directly involve an interstate transaction is exempt. Period. I don't consider that very little. I guess you do though.
Yes, I do consider it very little. And since "very little" is a completely subjective term, and you admit by this sentence that you had guessed we disagree on what is "very little", your entire haughty tone in this is undeserved. Haughty tones are for people really ARE superior, not just those who think they are.
They shouldn't be named after presidents at all, of any party. After time, a president's name is automatically associated with actions that happened during his time in office. A "USS Richard Nixon" would immedieately bring to mind the whole watergate thing. A "USS Bill Clinton" would immedeately bring to mind the Lewinsky thing. It's far better to name the ship after something more generic that doesn't include historical gaffes (which every president will have).
This is one area where I think the Brits have the right idea. *Their* ships have great names, like "Victorious", "Indominable", "Vigilant", and so on.
Hmm. Well I guess that can be a problem too, but at least it makes it possible to know what to ignore when I write a reply.
The ideal solution would be to simply append the signature onto the end of the text of the post in the database. So that way it isn't retroactively changable.
Then I *could* respond to a sig and be guaranteed that someone else reading the archive would see the same thing I did. As it stands, a sig is still a great way for someone to say something trollish and stupid without being responsible for it.
You are correct that those states could not trade those items. I did not state anything that would run counter to that conclusion. Much the opposite. However, those states laws do not apply to interstate commerce (eg, things outside the specific state in question) Your example applies to things outside any one state. Thus, the laws governing are of federal jurisdiction, and mutually exclusive to the intent of the state law legalizing the item. The state law applies to the state. The federal law applies between the states, and to federal holdings.
If you have a product that cannot be sold outside your own state (even to people in other states where it is legal, because it crosses a state boundry) then you are going to have a hell of a time trying to become anything other than a very small company. Therefore if the feds disallow it, people won't want to bother getting into the market (well, not legally anyway). So it DOES affect what is done in the state, even locally.
There's a lot of room in the law for issues that don't involve transactions.
There is very little that doesn't involve transactions. Consider the case of Alchohol prohibition. Posession of alchohol was perfectly legal. It was technically the SALE, and transport with intent to sell, that was illegal. But that was enough to make it effectively illegal to possess it as well.
Please, attempt to fully understand the references I make before replying. This reply basically restated more fully a point I already made.
I said: "That is not a sustainable system in the long run."
You said: "That is the case for any socialized system."
In that case I invite you to stop using the roads, and if you use public water and sewer that you shut it off right now and install a septic tank and dig a well.
I don't want it to be an option for the poster. I wandt it to be an option for the viewer, or be mandatory. I want it to be guaranteed so I can tell which part of what a person said is to be ignored. Right now the only way to tell is to see multiple posts by the same person and notice how they all close with the same sentence, and therefore that sentence is probably a sig. I think it's important because of the way the poster can retroactively change what was posted by altering his sig, and thus make it look like I responded to a different point than I did.
Consider this scenario:
Poster says:
I think we should kill all short people. I reply:
I disagree.
Poster laughs as he realize he got me to reply to his sig, then changes his sig to "I think short people are worthwhile human beings." Now the slashdot site has me on record as disagreeing with that statement instead of the one that was actually there when I wrote the reply.
You're still wrong about state law superceeding. If two neighboring states both say it is legal to trade in a particular good that is considered contriband at the federal level, they still can't trade that good with each other. Even if you take the approach that federal law only applies to interstate activities, it still is superceeding the states' own laws in that regard, even across the border between two states that BOTH disagree with the federal government about that law.
And in practice, since any state that won't trade with other states is going to die economically, that ends up meaning the federal law superceedes since no state dares trying to cut off trade with other states, and once it trades with other states the federal government is the primary (not secondary as you claim) law with jurisdiction over that transaction.
A user who saves the document and runs it in a program is explicitly thinking "I am running this piece of software". A user who Views a document is not thinking of it in those terms even though that is precisely what is happening behind the scenes. The deliberate tendency of MS to combine the idea of "viewing" with "running" as if they are the same thing is still the primary cause of the problem. I agree that anyone dumb enough to choose to run files he recieved in mail without care is going to have a virus problem. I don't agree that these people with outlook virii realise that this is what they are actually doing.
The concern isn't that the Canadian drugs are cheaper. They're the SAME drugs, but they are subsidized. That's what's considered dangerous about the practice. If the Canadian price is 50% of the price in the US, that's because a US citizen going up there is making Canadian citizens pay the other 50% of the price for him through their taxes. That is not a sustainable system in the long run. If you don't pay the taxes for the subsidized item, then you should be paying the full price for that item.
If this was a Lincoln quote then why is it shown to be from T.T. Halls? That was probably the slashdot signature tagged on the end, not part of the Lincoln quote. Note the change in font. (I wish slashdot would make the signatures look obviously different in some way from the rest of the text instead of making them look just like the final line in the last paragraph.)
The *WAR* was not due to slavery, this is true, but rather due to the unwillingness to let the southern states leave the union. The north could have just let the south go and there would not have been war. This I accept as true. BUT, the motive for why the south wanted to leave the union in the first place was most certainly because of slavery. The layout of congress at the time was such that the south had very little voting power, and so at the federal level laws could be pushed through and passed even if all the southern states opposed them. Seeing this, combined with the slow rise of the abolitionist movement, made the southern states rather wary of this power the north had. While they could talk in general of state's rights and sovereignty to garner more support, specifically they were worried about how their lack of soverignty would lead to forced changes in slavery practices.
They seceeded because they didn't want outsiders changing their slavery laws. They got invaded because the north didn't want them to seceed. So anyone who says "It's not about slavery" is being naive, just as someone who says "It was all about slavery" is being naive. The truth is somewhere between the two. Slavery was not a direct cause, but it was an indirect cause.
As far as why Lincoln only freed slaves in the confederacy, that is largely a matter of jurisdiction. The president doesn't have the authority to make such a decree for the USA. It would require ratification by Congress. But, as a war power, he could issue such a decree for areas that are "under rebellion". Writings by Lincoln make it clear he hated slavery for a long time prior to becoming president, but was being timid and careful about saying so publicly, as such opinions often branded one a loony. In the civil war he waited until such a time as the political climate was ripe for it, and then issued the emacipation proclimation when he saw the legal loophole that would allow it (states in rebellion). It was also carefully timed to coincide with the south's diplomatic attempts to get the UK to join their side. The UK had a strong anti-slavery movement that had already succeeded in getting British vessels to stop taking part in the transport and sale of slaves. By issuing the Proclimation, Lincoln killed any chance the south had to woo the UK to their side, because he ensured the abolitionists in the UK would now want to see the south lose.
Southerners who hate Lincoln would do well to remember that he opposed forcing reparations from the south after the war, and supported a rebuilding of what was damaged by the war, and a general reconcilliation. Then he got assasinated by someone who mistakenly thought he was doing the south a favor by getting rid of him. The years that followed were much worse on the south than they would have otherwise been.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the states that became the Confederacy did not constitute 2/3 of the country, so the events leading to the civil war do not contradict what the poster said in any way shape or form.
This is exactly why there was some argument against having a bill of rights in the constitution in the first place. The fear was that if you explicitly state what rights *DO* exist, it sounds very much like you are saying that something being disallowed is the norm until stated otherwise. Some would have rather had the constitution phrased the opposite way around - state was citizens are NOT allowed to do, and state that anything not explicitly mentioned in that list is allowed.
The hypocracy over positions on state's rights is not something unique to Ashcroft. Every major policial group does exactly the same thing. If your group has more power in local smaller governments than in the national government, then you pretend to favor States' rights because that's where your group has more power. If the opposite happens, you favor federal power. Look at the two largest parties of Republicrats and Democlicans, whichever one happens to be in the minority in Congress at the time is the one that happens to be touting states' rights at that time.
The 10th does not say states have sovereignty. It states just the opposite - that the states have powers over those areas the feds DON'T. Which basically ends up meaning the federal laws supercede the state laws.
The general policy of sending people e-mail that is mean to be "run" is a dumb, dumb idea in the first place, and that we can blame on Outlook. The fact is that those "idiot" users are just doing what the software has trained them to do - click on attachments to view them in whatever application is configured for them to run in. See a word doc - click on it to view it. See an Excel spreadsheet - click on it to view it. See a zip file - click on it to view it. See a virus program - click on it to view it - Oops! The idea of using executable content (which is what a word document or spreadsheet really *are*) as a normal, everyday typical way to operate your business is what leads people to run things they see in their e-mail without thinking. They aren't thinking "I'm running this file". They are thinking "I'm looking at this file."
Slashdot Mirror
And what about this, then:
int pFoo, *Bar;
Which falsely labels pFoo as a pointer and Bar as not a pointer, when the opposite is true? How's THAT for confusing. The problem with encoding type name with the variable is that it now means there are two seperate ways where you "define" the type - the one for the compiler's benefit and the one for the human reader's benefit. Since they are totally independant of each other, they can disagree - leading to no end of confusion. I much prefer coming up with a solution where the human-readable version and the compiler-readable version are guaranteed to actually agree. If that cannot be done, then you are better off forcing the human reader to look at the same thing the compiler looks at, rather than inventing a fake mnemonic that has no guarantee of being correct after several hands have been involved mantaining the code.
The only such naming mnemonic I use is ones that label the storage scope, as in g_foo means "global foo", and s_foo means "local stack foo", and h_foo means "heap foo". This mnemonic just helps the reader figure out where to look for the declaration of the variable, without telling him what that declaration actually is.
His example doesn't properly illustrate the problem. the problem is when the first parameter is the pointer, as follows:
int * foo, bar
To the typical novice C programmer, that looks like it means "foo and bar are both of type 'int *', when in fact it means "foo is int *, while bar is just int" That is confusing. One thing I would have liked to have seen done differently is to use actual words for the different numerical formats. I'd rather see something like: hex$ff80 rather than 0xff80. This is especially annoying with octal. It is VERY counter-intuative that:
010 == 8
when it looks like "ten' with an irrelevant preceeding zero. This is bad because it conflicts with the mathematical meaning of prepending a zero, which is that it means nothing.
And if they invented types for octal, and hex, why didn't they do binary while they were at it? that would have been quite useful and make some things a lot more legible.
As far as assigning to const being just a warning, that sounds like something compiler-dependant. It really should be enforced more strongly than that.
ideally, any computer counting system has to come with a paper trail that the voter can verify by eye. I like the system we use here in Wisconsin. It's simple, easy, and fairly hard to spoof. You have a large thick paper ballot, with big writing for people with bad vision. You use a pen in the booth to fill in the arrow next to the choices you want. Then *you* personally carry the form to a reader machine, that accepts the form face-down (so you don't have to show anyone what you marked), and electronically tallies your votes right there, AND drops your paper copy inside in a locked box. The paper copies are kept around in case there's a dispute (If a recount is called for , the paper ballots are used and the electronic counts are ignored. The paper ballots are not disposed of until several weeks later when everyone agrees to the results of the election.)
The machine doesn't tell you who you voted for (that would ruin anonymity, since people are watching), but it does give a green light and a beep if your form was understood, or a red light and a rejection if it was not. If it was not understood( because of, say, a stray pen mark that made you vote for two candidates), then you find out RIGHT AWAY that it was misread, and you have a chance to take another blank ballot, go back to a booth, and redo your vote. This way you never, ever, have to guess the voter's intent if the ballot isn't machine readable. The voter himself gets immediate feedback right at the polling station if the ballot cannot be read.
About the only thing missing that I would like to see is some form of receipt the machine prints, that the voter can rip off, look at, and then hit a "confirm" button before the machine counts his vote. That way if the machine misread his vote, he can see on the reciept that it isn't what he wanted. The receipts would have to be something only the voter sees (to preserve anonymity). If the voter doesn't take the receipt, it should be dropped in a trash box or shredded so the next voter doesn't see it.
The thing about that system is that it provides BOTH an accurate paper trail, and a computerized counting system, that makes sub-tallys at the voting station, and allows for the user to have instant feedback at the polling station. In the infamous Bush/Gore election, the Wisconsin vote was as close a margin as the Florida vote. But it was believed accurate and no recall was called for.
Any fair system cannot get rid of the paper. The paper is the proof, should anyone dispute the results.
The illiterate, or very low reading ability.
Who can't use current paper systems.
People with limited sight.
Who can't use current paper systems.
People with limited or no english reading ability.
Who can't use current paper systems.
There is no need to try to make the computer voting system perfect *except* in its reliability and counting. For other problems such as you mention, the solution has nothing to do with the system used - it is a high level solution (like having someone else help you with your vote, JUST like they have to do today with paper systems.)
(By "them" I was referring to SCO heads, of course, not Harris and Klebold, athough they would deserve similar treatment.)
Too bad real life isn't like the Sims where I could drop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold into SCO's headquarters with some sawed-off shotguns and enough ammo to level the alamo.
That's too quick an end for them. Just have them
walk upstairs, and then delete the stairs. Make sure all the food and toilet facilities are on the ground floor. Sit back and enjoy their long demise.
(This is the fixed link. THat one above got mangled)
Perky Dead Animal Dioramas
And if you want something really disturbing to look at in the area, check out this:
d .h tml
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/WIMADdea
This is a real place, but the article was written several years ago and I don't know if the guy is still giving tours or not. He's pretty old.
The house on the rock was designed by one of Wright's rivals. It was such a weird place partly as a satire of Wright's style.
Anything that does not directly involve an interstate transaction is exempt. Period. I don't consider that very little. I guess you do though.
Yes, I do consider it very little. And since "very little" is a completely subjective term, and you admit by this sentence that you had guessed we disagree on what is "very little", your entire haughty tone in this is undeserved. Haughty tones are for people really ARE superior, not just those who think they are.
They shouldn't be named after presidents at all, of any party. After time, a president's name is automatically associated with actions that happened during his time in office. A "USS Richard Nixon" would immedieately bring to mind the whole watergate thing. A "USS Bill Clinton" would immedeately bring to mind the Lewinsky thing. It's far better to name the ship after something more generic that doesn't include historical gaffes (which every president will have).
This is one area where I think the Brits have the right idea. *Their* ships have great names, like "Victorious", "Indominable", "Vigilant", and so on.
Hmm. Well I guess that can be a problem too, but at least it makes it possible to know what to ignore when I write a reply.
The ideal solution would be to simply append the signature onto the end of the text of the post in the database. So that way it isn't retroactively changable.
Then I *could* respond to a sig and be guaranteed that someone else reading the archive would see the same thing I did. As it stands, a sig is still a great way for someone to say something trollish and stupid without being responsible for it.
You are correct that those states could not trade those items. I did not state anything that would run counter to that conclusion. Much the opposite. However, those states laws do not apply to interstate commerce (eg, things outside the specific state in question) Your example applies to things outside any one state. Thus, the laws governing are of federal jurisdiction, and mutually exclusive to the intent of the state law legalizing the item. The state law applies to the state. The federal law applies between the states, and to federal holdings.
If you have a product that cannot be sold outside your own state (even to people in other states where it is legal, because it crosses a state boundry) then you are going to have a hell of a time trying to become anything other than a very small company. Therefore if the feds disallow it, people won't want to bother getting into the market (well, not legally anyway). So it DOES affect what is done in the state, even locally.
There's a lot of room in the law for issues that don't involve transactions.
There is very little that doesn't involve transactions. Consider the case of Alchohol prohibition. Posession of alchohol was perfectly legal. It was technically the SALE, and transport with intent to sell, that was illegal. But that was enough to make it effectively illegal to possess it as well.
Please, attempt to fully understand the references I make before replying. This reply basically restated more fully a point I already made.
Your haughty tone is undeserved.
I said: "That is not a sustainable system in the long run."
You said: "That is the case for any socialized system."
In that case I invite you to stop using the roads,
and if you use public water and sewer that you shut it off right now and install a septic tank and dig a well.
I don't want it to be an option for the poster. I wandt it to be an option for the viewer, or be mandatory. I want it to be guaranteed so I can tell which part of what a person said is to be ignored. Right now the only way to tell is to see multiple posts by the same person and notice how they all close with the same sentence, and therefore that sentence is probably a sig. I think it's important because of the way the poster can retroactively change what was posted by altering his sig, and thus make it look like I responded to a different point than I did.
Consider this scenario:
Poster says:
I think we should kill all short people.
I reply:
I disagree.
Poster laughs as he realize he got me to reply to his sig, then changes his sig to "I think short people are worthwhile human beings." Now the slashdot site has me on record as disagreeing with that statement instead of the one that was actually there when I wrote the reply.
You're still wrong about state law superceeding. If two neighboring states both say it is legal to trade in a particular good that is considered contriband at the federal level, they still can't trade that good with each other. Even if you take the approach that federal law only applies to interstate activities, it still is superceeding the states' own laws in that regard, even across the border between two states that BOTH disagree with the federal government about that law.
And in practice, since any state that won't trade with other states is going to die economically, that ends up meaning the federal law superceedes since no state dares trying to cut off trade with other states, and once it trades with other states the federal government is the primary (not secondary as you claim) law with jurisdiction over that transaction.
A user who saves the document and runs it in a program is explicitly thinking "I am running this piece of software". A user who Views a document is not thinking of it in those terms even though that is precisely what is happening behind the scenes. The deliberate tendency of MS to combine the idea of "viewing" with "running" as if they are the same thing is still the primary cause of the problem. I agree that anyone dumb enough to choose to run files he recieved in mail without care is going to have a virus problem. I don't agree that these people with outlook virii realise that this is what they are actually doing.
The concern isn't that the Canadian drugs are cheaper. They're the SAME drugs, but they are subsidized. That's what's considered dangerous about the practice. If the Canadian price is 50% of the price in the US, that's because a US citizen going up there is making Canadian citizens pay the other 50% of the price for him through their taxes.
That is not a sustainable system in the long run.
If you don't pay the taxes for the subsidized item, then you should be paying the full price for that item.
If this was a Lincoln quote then why is it shown to be from T.T. Halls?
That was probably the slashdot signature tagged on the end, not part of the Lincoln quote. Note the change in font. (I wish slashdot would make the signatures look obviously different in some way from the rest of the text instead of making them look just like the final line in the last paragraph.)
The *WAR* was not due to slavery, this is true, but rather due to the unwillingness to let the southern states leave the union. The north could have just let the south go and there would not have been war. This I accept as true. BUT, the motive for why the south wanted to leave the union in the first place was most certainly because of slavery. The layout of congress at the time was such that the south had very little voting power, and so at the federal level laws could be pushed through and passed even if all the southern states opposed them. Seeing this, combined with the slow rise of the abolitionist movement, made the southern states rather wary of this power the north had. While they could talk in general of state's rights and sovereignty to garner more support, specifically they were worried about how their lack of soverignty would lead to forced changes in slavery practices.
They seceeded because they didn't want outsiders changing their slavery laws. They got invaded because the north didn't want them to seceed. So anyone who says "It's not about slavery" is being naive, just as someone who says "It was all about slavery" is being naive. The truth is somewhere between the two. Slavery was not a direct cause, but it was an indirect cause.
As far as why Lincoln only freed slaves in the confederacy, that is largely a matter of jurisdiction. The president doesn't have the authority to make such a decree for the USA. It would require ratification by Congress. But, as a war power, he could issue such a decree for areas that are "under rebellion". Writings by Lincoln make it clear he hated slavery for a long time prior to becoming president, but was being timid and careful about saying so publicly, as such opinions often branded one a loony. In the civil war he waited until such a time as the political climate was ripe for it, and then issued the emacipation proclimation when he saw the legal loophole that would allow it (states in rebellion). It was also carefully timed to coincide with the south's diplomatic attempts to get the UK to join their side. The UK had a strong anti-slavery movement that had already succeeded in getting British vessels to stop taking part in the transport and sale of slaves. By issuing the Proclimation, Lincoln killed any chance the south had to woo the UK to their side, because he ensured the abolitionists in the UK would now want to see the south lose.
Southerners who hate Lincoln would do well to remember that he opposed forcing reparations from the south after the war, and supported a rebuilding of what was damaged by the war, and a general reconcilliation. Then he got assasinated by someone who mistakenly thought he was doing the south a favor by getting rid of him. The years that followed were much worse on the south than they would have otherwise been.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but the states that became the Confederacy did not constitute 2/3 of the country, so the events leading to the civil war do not contradict what the poster said in any way shape or form.
This is exactly why there was some argument against having a bill of rights in the constitution in the first place. The fear was that if you explicitly state what rights *DO* exist, it sounds very much like you are saying that something being disallowed is the norm until stated otherwise. Some would have rather had the constitution phrased the opposite way around - state was citizens are NOT allowed to do, and state that anything not explicitly mentioned in that list is allowed.
The hypocracy over positions on state's rights is not something unique to Ashcroft. Every major policial group does exactly the same thing. If your group has more power in local smaller governments than in the national government, then you pretend to favor States' rights because that's where your group has more power. If the opposite happens, you favor federal power. Look at the two largest parties of Republicrats and Democlicans, whichever one happens to be in the minority in Congress at the time is the one that happens to be touting states' rights at that time.
The 10th does not say states have sovereignty. It states just the opposite - that the states have powers over those areas the feds DON'T. Which basically ends up meaning the federal laws supercede the state laws.
The general policy of sending people e-mail that is mean to be "run" is a dumb, dumb idea in the first place, and that we can blame on Outlook. The fact is that those "idiot" users are just doing what the software has trained them to do - click on attachments to view them in whatever application is configured for them to run in. See a word doc - click on it to view it. See an Excel spreadsheet - click on it to view it. See a zip file - click on it to view it. See a virus program - click on it to view it - Oops!
The idea of using executable content (which is what a word document or spreadsheet really *are*) as a normal, everyday typical way to operate your business is what leads people to run things they see in their e-mail without thinking. They aren't thinking "I'm running this file". They are thinking "I'm looking at this file."