The reason the "at large" was ruled out was it was an attempt to dilute the black vote in violation of the Voting Rights Act. It's not automatically prohibited, but if you try to implement it in a state with any "majority-minority" districts, you'll get splattered.
(Assume the state has 15 Representatives, and was 60% white, 40% black. Under the VRA, you would normally expect six districts to be "black" districts, and nine to be "white". The idea of the at-large approach that got bandied about would have been to have one statewide vote on 15 reps, with every voter having 15 votes. Since there was only one "district", a majority-minority district was impossible. And if the whites all voted for the same fifteen white candidates, each would win handily, and all the black votes would fail to elect a single black.)
GPL3 will keep my software from being used in that sort of hardware, at least unless the manufacturer pays for the privilege. I think that's fair. As I have no ideological commitment to universal Free Software, I agree that whatever restrictions you want to put on your code are fair.
But if somebody releases code under an otherwise-Free license that specifically prohibits use on military hardware, then that is non-Free software. If somebody releases code under an otherwise-Free license that specifically prohibits use on locked-down consumer hardware, that is similarly non-Free software.
After all, the Macintosh finally did die. Leopard killed Classic support even on PPC, which means the current "Mac OS" has the same support for Mac apps that 1997's OPENSTEP did -- zero.
Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do) Your parenthetical is completely wrong. Treaties are not necessarily any more the "supreme law of the land" than any other law of the United States. The supremacy law privileges the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States over the laws of the states, but it does not (clearly) rank treaties over laws. (It reads: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")
Since the Constitution in its text does not (clearly) privilege treaties over laws, we have to look to the interpretation in the courts of the clause to see how laws and treaties interact. The interpretation in the courts is that laws and treaties are equal, and a ordinary act of Congress can repeal a treaty.
But, even if we assume that treaties do outrank laws, it still doesn't matter in this case. Under the Constitution, a treaty requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. The United States Senate did not ratify the Uruguay Round GATT by a two-thirds majority; instead, both houses of Congress adopted it by majority vote as an ordinary law. So the WTO and trade rules pursuant to it are either in effet as ordinary laws in the U.S. (if the Uruguay Round GATT could be adopted as ordinary legislation, which is the traditional interpretation of the courts), or they are of no legal force (under the minority view that it must be adopted through the treaty procedure to have force).
Stanford has a $17 billion endowment, or $2.5 million per undergrad enrolled. They could go tuition-free for undergraduate education if they wanted to; the thirty-odd thousand nominal tuition (especially university-supplied financial aid is discounted) is a relatively small fraction of the budget compared to endowment returns and federal grants, and could be covered with minimal cutbacks. Tuition at Stanford is high because the university administration wants it to be high.
Previously, Time Warner (or whoever) would come to a local franchise authority and have to negotiate with the community leaders. These community leaders would then be bribed by the local cable monopoly, established before the 1996 Telecommunications Act outlawed exclusive franchises, to impose huge new franchise fees and onerous "community service" requirements. The goal was to drive off the interested competitor and maintain the old franchise's monopoly. No more! Now Ohio has done its citizens the great service of letting Time Warner (and AT&T before them) give those local authorities and the cable monopolies that have bribed them the finger, ending the corrupt bargains that maintained local cable monopolies ten years after they were outlawed.
Microsoft sees no particular value in controlling the browser as a browser; what they want to control is the platform represented by the browser. Whether IE, Maxthon, or something else, as long as it uses Trident/MSHTML.dll, Microsoft is the one deciding what HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc. is being supported.
my understanding is that the "UNIX source code and copyrights" being disputed were actually never Novell's property in the first place, Your understanding is wrong. Novell bought Unix System Labs (an AT&T subsidiary specifically formed to operate AT&T's Unix business) from AT&T back in 1993, including the Unix trademark and the AT&T copyrights.
Compose/minus/L or compose/L/minus for X. AltGr+3 (right alt or control-alt) using this keyboard driver on Windows (NT 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003, or Vista, x86/AMD64/IA64) Option+3 on Mac on NeXT Alt+L on Amiga.
Complaining they didn't get "Bush/Cheney et. al for torching Plame" is like complaining they didn't get Hillary Clinton for Vince Foster's murder. Richard Armitage is the guy who told Novak Plame's name, he had no axe to grind, and he was unaware that Plame was undercover. The real scandal is that Fitzgerald knew all that on day one, and still wasted people's time and money on an investigation.
Well that's wrong as Apple makes more money from its media efforts than Microsoft does. Microsoft licenses Windows and Office profitably
Right, because the inclusion of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Services with Windows for [unspecified, magical reason] didn't expose Microsoft's Windows license revenue to Burst's claims at all. I understand.
it appeared clear that Burst expected to jump from Microsoft into big money with Apple, and pundits threw around numbers like $1 billion.
Some blovating morons threw around stupid-idiot numbers. Based on these numbers, pushed around by people whose knowledge of patent law can be written in lipstick on a bar napkin, Apple paying the same order-of-magnitude payoff to Burst that Microsoft did constitutes Burst losing. Gotcha.
A strong defense against patent troll attacks it the best bet against unreasonable patents, given that the patent office can't manage to regulate things.
Yes, and paying somebody off with enough money that they make a profit off trolling is the best bet to attract new patent trolls. And that's what Apple just did.
The question becomes, then, is Activision actually "making a recording that is designed to fool people into thinking it's somebody else", or did they just want a cover and it happens that the cover artists did a (perhaps too-) good job?
In the cases of both Ford and Frito-Lay, there was an obvious effort to associate the singer with the product by using their song and a sound-alike, to create the impression that the singer was voluntarily associated with the product advertised. Confusing listeners was clearly an aim of the effort.
This is a different case. Activision has mostly used cover versions for Guitar Hero; there was never any apparent effort to give the implication that the artists were associating themselves with the game. You don't even hear the cover of the song unless you've already bought the game. It is possible that Activision wanted to confuse players of the game as to who did the song so that word-of-mouth would entice Romantics fans to buy the game, but that seems far-fetched.
Oh, and the Romantics apparently filed in Detroit, so the circuit will be the Sixth, not the Ninth.
Eh. Remember, they only got $60 million from Microsoft.
Let's assume that Burst was scaling its payoff demands to each company's earnings (which is a fairly common metric). In that case, with the Microsoft settlement having been $60 million, the amount Burst would have been looking for from an Apple settlement would have been about $15 million. $10 million isn't a heck of a lot less than that.
Sorry, I'm running a mild fever, and I wrote badly as a result. It isn't improved battery technology that I'm dismissing as magic.
The issue posed by the headline is not whether an electric car can be delivered; it is whether "Silicon Valley" is better suited to deliver one than the auto industry because it knows (to quote the article) "technology disruption". The point I'm making is that the only component holding the electric back is the part where "Silicon Valley"-type firms unrelated to car manufacture are already working. So, if having "Silicon Valley" working on the problem of the electric car were enough to be the solution, then the problem would already be solved, because "Silicon Valley" has already been working on the core problem. When the good-enough, cheap-enough battery arrives, the electric car will follow, and forming new electric car firms in SV isn't a magic formula that will accelerate that any.
Right, which means that the electric car as a whole system underperforms the gasoline car with a motor that has virtually no room for improvement; the laws of thermodynamics stand in the way of an electric motor of more than marginally higher efficiency. So the gains from "Silicon Valley innovation" would have to come from other portions of the car. The only part of the electric car where there is both theoretical room for significant improvement and the improvements would be uniquely beneficial to electric cars would be the batteries.
If someone could deliver batteries with energy densities per pound approaching that of a tank of gas (at a commercially viable price), the "electric car" would be in everybody's driveway. But if Silicon Valley could deliver such batteries, they'd already be in your laptop and iPod.
The fundamental problem with the electric car is that no battery ever developed even approaches the useful energy density of liquid hydrocarbons. This is despite over a century of people trying to improve the energy density of batteries, including extensive efforts from "high tech" firms. Maybe somebody will stumble upon a miracle, but it's not because there hasn't been intensive effort to do better.
Sure, you can overcome the battery disadvantage partially by reducing the energy demands of an automobile with efficiency tricks. The thing is, most efficiency tricks apply just as effectively to gas automobiles as they do to electric ones. Any inexpensive innovations will be adopted by both forms, so the electric car will gain no ground relative to the gas automobile. That leaves the expensive ones, which drive up the cost of the electric car. Innovation might make the expensive ones less expensive; at that point they'll be adapted to the gasoline car and the gasoline car will wind up ahead of the electric again.
The only technology improvement that can make the electric car truly competitive with the gasoline car is improved batteries, and Silicon Valley does not have magic pixie dust that will suddenly make batteries improve -- or else they'd have already put them in your laptop.
The authors of a move function should have enough sense to performs a copy-verify-delete, instead of just a copy-delete. I mean, the entire point of automating the task with a single "move" function would be to automate doing the right thing, not making it incredibly easy to automatically do the wrong thing.
1) Google continually tries to improve its algorithms to deliver an improved experience, rather than sitting on its laurels. 2) Sometimes the change in algorithms has negative consequences for some websites. 3) Some websites are living so close to the edge that one month of Google putting their ads in less optimal places costs them so much money it drives them out of business in a single month. 4) It's not the fault of the marginal businesses who don't have the sense to set daily and monthly expenditure limits they could afford, or who have made themselves so dependent on Google that one month of suboptimal ad placement sinks them. It's Google's fault for trying to improve its algorithms. 5) Therefore, Google is Microsoftian in its evil.
Six Apart is the parent company of LiveJournal, just like Google is the parent company of Orkut and News Corp. is the parent company of MySpace. Now, whether Six Apart's participation means LiveJournal participation . . .
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the "at large" was ruled out was it was an attempt to dilute the black vote in violation of the Voting Rights Act. It's not automatically prohibited, but if you try to implement it in a state with any "majority-minority" districts, you'll get splattered.
(Assume the state has 15 Representatives, and was 60% white, 40% black. Under the VRA, you would normally expect six districts to be "black" districts, and nine to be "white". The idea of the at-large approach that got bandied about would have been to have one statewide vote on 15 reps, with every voter having 15 votes. Since there was only one "district", a majority-minority district was impossible. And if the whites all voted for the same fifteen white candidates, each would win handily, and all the black votes would fail to elect a single black.)
But if somebody releases code under an otherwise-Free license that specifically prohibits use on military hardware, then that is non-Free software. If somebody releases code under an otherwise-Free license that specifically prohibits use on locked-down consumer hardware, that is similarly non-Free software.
After all, the Macintosh finally did die. Leopard killed Classic support even on PPC, which means the current "Mac OS" has the same support for Mac apps that 1997's OPENSTEP did -- zero.
Since the Constitution in its text does not (clearly) privilege treaties over laws, we have to look to the interpretation in the courts of the clause to see how laws and treaties interact. The interpretation in the courts is that laws and treaties are equal, and a ordinary act of Congress can repeal a treaty.
But, even if we assume that treaties do outrank laws, it still doesn't matter in this case. Under the Constitution, a treaty requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. The United States Senate did not ratify the Uruguay Round GATT by a two-thirds majority; instead, both houses of Congress adopted it by majority vote as an ordinary law. So the WTO and trade rules pursuant to it are either in effet as ordinary laws in the U.S. (if the Uruguay Round GATT could be adopted as ordinary legislation, which is the traditional interpretation of the courts), or they are of no legal force (under the minority view that it must be adopted through the treaty procedure to have force).
Stanford has a $17 billion endowment, or $2.5 million per undergrad enrolled. They could go tuition-free for undergraduate education if they wanted to; the thirty-odd thousand nominal tuition (especially university-supplied financial aid is discounted) is a relatively small fraction of the budget compared to endowment returns and federal grants, and could be covered with minimal cutbacks. Tuition at Stanford is high because the university administration wants it to be high.
Previously, Time Warner (or whoever) would come to a local franchise authority and have to negotiate with the community leaders. These community leaders would then be bribed by the local cable monopoly, established before the 1996 Telecommunications Act outlawed exclusive franchises, to impose huge new franchise fees and onerous "community service" requirements. The goal was to drive off the interested competitor and maintain the old franchise's monopoly. No more! Now Ohio has done its citizens the great service of letting Time Warner (and AT&T before them) give those local authorities and the cable monopolies that have bribed them the finger, ending the corrupt bargains that maintained local cable monopolies ten years after they were outlawed.
Microsoft sees no particular value in controlling the browser as a browser; what they want to control is the platform represented by the browser. Whether IE, Maxthon, or something else, as long as it uses Trident/MSHTML.dll, Microsoft is the one deciding what HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc. is being supported.
Then the "real open source geek type" you mention should have kept his trap shut, too.
Compose/minus/L or compose/L/minus for X.
AltGr+3 (right alt or control-alt) using this keyboard driver on Windows (NT 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003, or Vista, x86/AMD64/IA64)
Option+3 on Mac on NeXT
Alt+L on Amiga.
Diamond is metastable. Graphite is forever.
Complaining they didn't get "Bush/Cheney et. al for torching Plame" is like complaining they didn't get Hillary Clinton for Vince Foster's murder. Richard Armitage is the guy who told Novak Plame's name, he had no axe to grind, and he was unaware that Plame was undercover. The real scandal is that Fitzgerald knew all that on day one, and still wasted people's time and money on an investigation.
Well that's wrong as Apple makes more money from its media efforts than Microsoft does. Microsoft licenses Windows and Office profitably
Right, because the inclusion of Windows Media Player and Windows Media Services with Windows for [unspecified, magical reason] didn't expose Microsoft's Windows license revenue to Burst's claims at all. I understand.
it appeared clear that Burst expected to jump from Microsoft into big money with Apple, and pundits threw around numbers like $1 billion.
Some blovating morons threw around stupid-idiot numbers. Based on these numbers, pushed around by people whose knowledge of patent law can be written in lipstick on a bar napkin, Apple paying the same order-of-magnitude payoff to Burst that Microsoft did constitutes Burst losing. Gotcha.
A strong defense against patent troll attacks it the best bet against unreasonable patents, given that the patent office can't manage to regulate things.
Yes, and paying somebody off with enough money that they make a profit off trolling is the best bet to attract new patent trolls. And that's what Apple just did.
The question becomes, then, is Activision actually "making a recording that is designed to fool people into thinking it's somebody else", or did they just want a cover and it happens that the cover artists did a (perhaps too-) good job?
In the cases of both Ford and Frito-Lay, there was an obvious effort to associate the singer with the product by using their song and a sound-alike, to create the impression that the singer was voluntarily associated with the product advertised. Confusing listeners was clearly an aim of the effort.
This is a different case. Activision has mostly used cover versions for Guitar Hero; there was never any apparent effort to give the implication that the artists were associating themselves with the game. You don't even hear the cover of the song unless you've already bought the game. It is possible that Activision wanted to confuse players of the game as to who did the song so that word-of-mouth would entice Romantics fans to buy the game, but that seems far-fetched.
Oh, and the Romantics apparently filed in Detroit, so the circuit will be the Sixth, not the Ninth.
Eh. Remember, they only got $60 million from Microsoft.
Let's assume that Burst was scaling its payoff demands to each company's earnings (which is a fairly common metric). In that case, with the Microsoft settlement having been $60 million, the amount Burst would have been looking for from an Apple settlement would have been about $15 million. $10 million isn't a heck of a lot less than that.
As long as OS X doesn't run on white boxes, nobody has to worry about OS X.
If Blu-Ray is winning, why doesn't Sony seem to think it is?
Sorry, I'm running a mild fever, and I wrote badly as a result. It isn't improved battery technology that I'm dismissing as magic.
The issue posed by the headline is not whether an electric car can be delivered; it is whether "Silicon Valley" is better suited to deliver one than the auto industry because it knows (to quote the article) "technology disruption". The point I'm making is that the only component holding the electric back is the part where "Silicon Valley"-type firms unrelated to car manufacture are already working. So, if having "Silicon Valley" working on the problem of the electric car were enough to be the solution, then the problem would already be solved, because "Silicon Valley" has already been working on the core problem. When the good-enough, cheap-enough battery arrives, the electric car will follow, and forming new electric car firms in SV isn't a magic formula that will accelerate that any.
Right, which means that the electric car as a whole system underperforms the gasoline car with a motor that has virtually no room for improvement; the laws of thermodynamics stand in the way of an electric motor of more than marginally higher efficiency. So the gains from "Silicon Valley innovation" would have to come from other portions of the car. The only part of the electric car where there is both theoretical room for significant improvement and the improvements would be uniquely beneficial to electric cars would be the batteries.
If someone could deliver batteries with energy densities per pound approaching that of a tank of gas (at a commercially viable price), the "electric car" would be in everybody's driveway. But if Silicon Valley could deliver such batteries, they'd already be in your laptop and iPod.
The fundamental problem with the electric car is that no battery ever developed even approaches the useful energy density of liquid hydrocarbons. This is despite over a century of people trying to improve the energy density of batteries, including extensive efforts from "high tech" firms. Maybe somebody will stumble upon a miracle, but it's not because there hasn't been intensive effort to do better.
Sure, you can overcome the battery disadvantage partially by reducing the energy demands of an automobile with efficiency tricks. The thing is, most efficiency tricks apply just as effectively to gas automobiles as they do to electric ones. Any inexpensive innovations will be adopted by both forms, so the electric car will gain no ground relative to the gas automobile. That leaves the expensive ones, which drive up the cost of the electric car. Innovation might make the expensive ones less expensive; at that point they'll be adapted to the gasoline car and the gasoline car will wind up ahead of the electric again.
The only technology improvement that can make the electric car truly competitive with the gasoline car is improved batteries, and Silicon Valley does not have magic pixie dust that will suddenly make batteries improve -- or else they'd have already put them in your laptop.
The authors of a move function should have enough sense to performs a copy-verify-delete, instead of just a copy-delete. I mean, the entire point of automating the task with a single "move" function would be to automate doing the right thing, not making it incredibly easy to automatically do the wrong thing.
Hmm, so a move coded such that it doesn't actually verify the copy before the delete is standard for MacOS?
I've heard of a phrase for this sort of thing -- "defective by design".
1) Google continually tries to improve its algorithms to deliver an improved experience, rather than sitting on its laurels.
2) Sometimes the change in algorithms has negative consequences for some websites.
3) Some websites are living so close to the edge that one month of Google putting their ads in less optimal places costs them so much money it drives them out of business in a single month.
4) It's not the fault of the marginal businesses who don't have the sense to set daily and monthly expenditure limits they could afford, or who have made themselves so dependent on Google that one month of suboptimal ad placement sinks them. It's Google's fault for trying to improve its algorithms.
5) Therefore, Google is Microsoftian in its evil.
Six Apart is the parent company of LiveJournal, just like Google is the parent company of Orkut and News Corp. is the parent company of MySpace. Now, whether Six Apart's participation means LiveJournal participation . . .