I'm not saying you are wrong (and I'm not an American), but if this is the case, why does it start "congress shall make no law..." ?
Has some precedent been set at some point that it is actually universally applicable ? or is it binding on any instituation that might have received federal money ?
No. SourceXChange and similar almost certainly require you to take responsibility for work you contract to perform, or supply to them for use for a particular purpose.
The GPL's disownment of warranties is probably OK in most jurisdictions because the author genuinely did not supply the software to you for any particular purpose, and you did not pay money or enter into a contract in any other way.
Sun make money by selling hardware. Period. Everything else they do, from Solaris to Java to thinking about buying StarOffice is aimed at keeping their hardware market viable and its margins high. If you don't believe me go and read their quaterly reports.
I'm pretty sure NAS runs on more platforms than just Solaris, and people who run that kind of thing (even on Linux) are unlikely to use PC hardware - they'll run it on Sparcs, Alphas and HPs.
I reckon this was a neutral move for Sun/Netscape as far as increasing their harware-market clout was concerned. It was probably just to save the effort of porting a product they didn't think anyone would buy.
I think you are bang-on. People who are still in programming at the age of thirty-five are either a waste of space or extremely expensive (sometimes both:) compared with young, eager, cheap types a few years out of school.
Young men with no lives (and I'll include myself in this:) make almost ideal employees in programming environments - they don't ask for much money (relatively) and they are prepared to work long(ish) hours.
Did I say it was fast ? I said it was fast-er. Thats on a PII 400. I think the most effusive I got was to say it was 'acceptable' (ie the speed of Win3.0 on a 386SX-16, or X+Motif on a Sun3/50:-)
Most of the mass in the Unix version of star office is some honking-huge windows porting library sitting on top of motif. You could get rid of all that stuff if you rewrote it in Java, and you could do it in Swing - hence no evil GUI porting problems.
The problem we-all-know-who-they-are had writing a Java office suite was primarily the AWT, which, like the system SO is based on, has a honking huge amount of wrapper code to make the GUI portable. Now Swing exists, it might be worth a second look.
I have seen office-suite-size applications written in Java using Swing, and they look a lot more acceptable than -office did.
In the UK you are a SUBJECT of the state not a citizen
You're confusing the issue. You could abolish the monarchy, replace it with an elected (but powerless) presidency (like Italy's), and start calling each other Citizen and yelling "civis britannicus sum" tomorrow, but unless you changed the parliamentary system as well, the PM would keep all his powers.
BT charges per minute. This must have cost Britain an entire industry.
Which industry ? The per-minute charges are trivial for local calls (and all ISPs have local numbers). There are plenty of alternative telcos, some of which even have per-call or no-fee charges for local calls (though they don't apply these to ISP calls).
The interesting aspect of the per-minute billing is the new industry of 'free' ISPs (that make there money by splitting the call charges with their teclo).
I don't know the details of the cloning process they plan to use, but in the case of "Dolly" and its immediate sequels, none of the rejects were viable enough to survive the first few days of gestation.
I've a feeling its even more inoccuous than that. The term 'point' as used in typography in the first place refers to a range of different measurements invented at different times by different people, and withing a few millimeters of each other. None of these corresponds terribly well to pixels, so when the inventors of different GUIs came to choose the sizes for fonts they all lunged in different directions.
Sorry I cannot explain this properly, but someone explained it to me once, and my head exploded.
Ummmm. I was just trying to present an analogy, not to suggest such a situation might really occur. The previous poster was suggesting British anti-terrorist laws were unnecessary because N Ireland is no worse off than New York. That clearly not being the case, I was trying to present an analogous situation in terms of New York, hence Canada (the closest other country to New York, right ?). No slur on the national character of anyone was intended.
I don't give a flying **** about Canadian gun deaths, that was another thread, and I'm Irish (and British) not American as should be rather clear from the rest of the thread. Do you not think you might be a bit oversensitive ?
Whose says, you ? why ? I'll be Irish and British and Scottish and English (roughly in the order) and proud of all of them, thank you very much.
Its nasty parochial nationalist thinking like this that causes wars the whole world over. I can hear then now in the back of my head "you can be Albanian or Serbian, not both", "you can be Turkish or Cypriot, not both", "you can be Pakistani or Kashmiri, not both", "you can be Rwandan or Tutsi not both", on and on and on throughout history.
Well, I guess you'll be delighted to hear you're contuing a great tradition in human affairs, you you're copying the exact mistake the British made when the invaded Ireland in the first place.
There is plenty of evidence that the British Government planned and and patrially succeeded in an attempt to exterminate the Irish people.
Well I don't know about exterminate. Oppress most definitely, but if there was any extermination it was throught incompetence, not intention (the potato famine, for instance).
The IRA has no plan to discriminate against Protestants in Ireland, they will enjoy the same privledges of freedom of speach, religion and assocations as all Irish citizens in a unified country under a democratic constitution.
No doubt, although they won't be able to have abortions. Nor would they, until recently, have been allowed to get divorced. The Republic has (from my point of view) done its fair share of oppressing in its short history - though to be fair nothing like as much as Britain.
People in Manhatten do indeed blow things up, but nothing like on the N Irish scale. The IRA may be as small as Osama Bin Laden's (sp?) gang of intolerant fruitcakes, but they're better organised and probably have more money and more arms. They're definitely more active, and they actually (mostly) live in the country they are fighting against. It makes them hugely more dangerous.
As for the historical grievances, and the bit about 'half the population', they're both true, and if you think Manhatten has anything like them, you should see the amount of hostility people give out when someone British points out that peace is preferable to violence (hint: see the rest of this thread).
If there was "peace and stability" why was there a civil rights campaign???
Because the catholic population of N Ireland was being treated unfairly (to say the least). You can have peace and stability without civil rights - it just tends not to last very long.
''Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted it that way.''
And got the British Army in to enforce that wish.
The British army was sent in to stop nationalist houses being burned. Seems perfectly OK to me. Would you rather they not ?
Your 'mothercountry' never 'let go' anything, it had been taken off their hands by war, in case you forgot, but oops, you will never have known anything about history in the first place.
Thats a matter of opinion. If the British had really wanted to hold on to Ireland they would have. As far as I can tell from my reading of the history it was only the difficulty in finding a solution that would protect both nationalists and unionists that made independance take so long
Regardless of the history, the problem is not the presence of any given group of people on any given bit of soil. The problem is violence and oppression and intolerance. There is plenty of that on both sides
Oh, and my family is probably just as Irish as yours is. They just want to remain part of Britain. I personally don't see one bit of difference in which country N Ireland is part of as long as the violence stops.
Oh and I suppose British military standing outside the polling places when the vote was taken had nothing to do with the outcome. The statistics are crap and everyone who is involved at all with the situation knows it. Tell you what I can post some quotes from Gerry Adams if you want me to. They would be just as accurate as your figures.
To my knowledge such a poll has never been taken. Shows how much you know. However, it is a simple matter of demographics - slightly more than 50% of NI residents are protestant, and slightly less are catholic (by origin, not faith). Protestants tend to be unionist and catholics tend to be nationalist. There are (empirically - you just need to go to Ireland and ask around a bit) there are more catholic unionists than protestant nationalists.
And if you think that fighting for freedom is terrorism then you sir are a very sad person. This is the only bloody war the whole world is not up in arms about the nationals having a right to their homeland, and it pisses me off to no end.
Northern Irish unionists have a right to theirs too. These people's ancestors moved to Ireland, or changed their faith, hundreds of years ago. Does their distant ancestors collusion and/or profiteering deprive them of any right to the land of their birth ?
How about it being illeagle for years and years to speak your native language in your own country, or drafting young men and sending them off to a war their homeland wasn't involved in.
This happened around a hundred years ago. Noone alive today was even borne then.
As an Irishman and a protestant it really gets under my skin when Americans who probably haven't even been to Ireland think an understanding of Irish politics can be genetically transmitted.
Firstly let me make it absolutely clear that I believe in self-determination for Ireland (both bits), and the principle of majority consent. Can you say as much ?
I quite agree the Brits should not ever have invaded Ireland. The world would be a much happier place. However, they did. Unless you know a way of reversing history, we have to live with the consequences. Since the majority of the population of Northern Ireland chooses to remain in the UK, the UK government has to keep them there. Do you really think anything else can be done ?
As for the idea the British security service plants bombs, well, yes, maybe they do. It would seem pretty odd for them to go after police and army targets, or unionist bars, but yes, maybe they do. OTOH even what the IRA accepts it has done (and neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein makes any bones about supporting the use of force, even occasionally against protestant civilians) should repel any civilised person. Is the transfer of a tiny scrap of land, whose population doesn't even want it, from one western democracy to another really worth all that blood ? I'll leave you to answer that question yourself.
As for the police - they CAN carry firearms, but this is only done on special occasions. There is no need for the police on the beat to be armed. I can't remember the last time a member of the Gardaí was shot in the line of duty.
The RUC (Northern Ireland's police force) are more or less routinely armed though, or at least they were before the cease-fire.
OK, the English moved in here about 800 years ago, and for most of that time, there had been resistance. For Gods sake, there was the 1916 rising, the War of Independance in the 20's and a civil war after that. Beleive me, there was a LOT more going on than calling the English Bastards. Why don't you get a book on the subject....
Well yes, but I think the poster was referring to the period of relative peace and stability (although not of any kind of social justice) between partition and the civil rights campaign in the North.
Right, several things. See my previous post for starters, but I'll repeat myself if necessary.
Firstly, the IRA may consider itself to be fighting the British government (although thankfully they're on a long term cease-fire at the moment), but the British state considers itself to be fighting terrorism (the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments) by both loyalist (pro-British, usually protestant, but not aligned with today's British government) and republican (pro-Irish, usually catholic, but not aligned with today's Irish government) groups.
I don't understand what you mean by the British army on the streets of Dublin. Dublin is the capital of the republic, and hasn't been part of Britain since the 1920s. Britain makes no claim to the modern Irish state, nor do most unionist groups in the north. The British army carries out some policing duties in the North because they are better trusted than the local police (especially by nationalists).
Nor do I understand what you mean by "terrorism by the British government". Unless you're an out-and-out anarchist nothing the British government has done in N Ireland since the 1970s looks even remotely like terrorism.
What you need to understand is that this is much a more complicated (but lower intensity) conflict than any war, in which their are four identifiable groups prepared to use force (N Irish Loyalists, N Irish Republicans, the Irish Government and the British Government). Since the 1970s the governments have done everything they can to get the two terrorist groups to stop fighting, because while they may sympathise with their aims they are opposed to their methods. Whilst the governments may disagree about methods, they are in essential agreement about priorities.
Prior to that the situation had been basically peaceful (though somewhat unjust to people on the wrong side of the border) since the 1920s when the republic was formed.
Your natural human desire to reduce this to a simple conflict with 2 sides is preventing you from understanding the complexity of the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying you are wrong (and I'm not an American), but if this is the case, why does it start "congress shall make no law ..." ?
Has some precedent been set at some point that it is actually universally applicable ? or is it binding on any instituation that might have received federal money ?
Frankly I find the commercial brain-washing of children far more "obscene" than a breast!
After all, children generally get to see breasts pretty early on in life. Its not like there's any big secret to keep.
PS. I agree totally with the above - subtle advertising as described is a much worse influence than soft port is likely to be.
Did you ever read Richard Feynman's account of how he got to be declared psychologically unfit for military service ?
Never underestimate the ability of bureaucracies to behave in a manner so stupid no individual would ever do it.
No. SourceXChange and similar almost certainly require you to take responsibility for work you contract to perform, or supply to them for use for a particular purpose.
The GPL's disownment of warranties is probably OK in most jurisdictions because the author genuinely did not supply the software to you for any particular purpose, and you did not pay money or enter into a contract in any other way.
Sun make money by selling hardware. Period. Everything else they do, from Solaris to Java to thinking about buying StarOffice is aimed at keeping their hardware market viable and its margins high. If you don't believe me go and read their quaterly reports.
I'm pretty sure NAS runs on more platforms than just Solaris, and people who run that kind of thing (even on Linux) are unlikely to use PC hardware - they'll run it on Sparcs, Alphas and HPs.
I reckon this was a neutral move for Sun/Netscape as far as increasing their harware-market clout was concerned. It was probably just to save the effort of porting a product they didn't think anyone would buy.
I think you are bang-on. People who are still in programming at the age of thirty-five are either a waste of space or extremely expensive (sometimes both :) compared with young, eager, cheap types a few years out of school.
:) make almost ideal employees in programming environments - they don't ask for much money (relatively) and they are prepared to work long(ish) hours.
Young men with no lives (and I'll include myself in this
Did I say it was fast ? I said it was fast-er. Thats on a PII 400. I think the most effusive I got was to say it was 'acceptable' (ie the speed of Win3.0 on a 386SX-16, or X+Motif on a Sun3/50 :-)
Most of the mass in the Unix version of star office is some honking-huge windows porting library sitting on top of motif. You could get rid of all that stuff if you rewrote it in Java, and you could do it in Swing - hence no evil GUI porting problems.
The problem we-all-know-who-they-are had writing a Java office suite was primarily the AWT, which, like the system SO is based on, has a honking huge amount of wrapper code to make the GUI portable. Now Swing exists, it might be worth a second look.
I have seen office-suite-size applications written in Java using Swing, and they look a lot more acceptable than -office did.
Restriction and free thinking do not go together.
I don't mean this as a flame, but .... does noone else out there see a certain contrdiction in this statement ?
It is forbidden to think unfreely here. ROTFL
SimonIn the UK you are a SUBJECT of the state not a citizen
You're confusing the issue. You could abolish the monarchy, replace it with an elected (but powerless) presidency (like Italy's), and start calling each other Citizen and yelling "civis britannicus sum" tomorrow, but unless you changed the parliamentary system as well, the PM would keep all his powers.
BT charges per minute. This must have cost Britain an entire industry.
Which industry ? The per-minute charges are trivial for local calls (and all ISPs have local numbers). There are plenty of alternative telcos, some of which even have per-call or no-fee charges for local calls (though they don't apply these to ISP calls).
The interesting aspect of the per-minute billing is the new industry of 'free' ISPs (that make there money by splitting the call charges with their teclo).
Is here
I don't know the details of the cloning process they plan to use, but in the case of "Dolly" and its immediate sequels, none of the rejects were viable enough to survive the first few days of gestation.
I've a feeling its even more inoccuous than that. The term 'point' as used in typography in the first place refers to a range of different measurements invented at different times by different people, and withing a few millimeters of each other. None of these corresponds terribly well to pixels, so when the inventors of different GUIs came to choose the sizes for fonts they all lunged in different directions.
Sorry I cannot explain this properly, but someone explained it to me once, and my head exploded.
Ummmm. I was just trying to present an analogy, not to suggest such a situation might really occur. The previous poster was suggesting British anti-terrorist laws were unnecessary because N Ireland is no worse off than New York. That clearly not being the case, I was trying to present an analogous situation in terms of New York, hence Canada (the closest other country to New York, right ?). No slur on the national character of anyone was intended.
I don't give a flying **** about Canadian gun deaths, that was another thread, and I'm Irish (and British) not American as should be rather clear from the rest of the thread. Do you not think you might be a bit oversensitive ?
Whose says, you ? why ? I'll be Irish and British and Scottish and English (roughly in the order) and proud of all of them, thank you very much.
Its nasty parochial nationalist thinking like this that causes wars the whole world over. I can hear then now in the back of my head "you can be Albanian or Serbian, not both", "you can be Turkish or Cypriot, not both", "you can be Pakistani or Kashmiri, not both", "you can be Rwandan or Tutsi not both", on and on and on throughout history.
Well, I guess you'll be delighted to hear you're contuing a great tradition in human affairs, you you're copying the exact mistake the British made when the invaded Ireland in the first place.
There is plenty of evidence that the British Government planned and and patrially succeeded in an attempt to exterminate the Irish people.
Well I don't know about exterminate. Oppress most definitely, but if there was any extermination it was throught incompetence, not intention (the potato famine, for instance).
The IRA has no plan to discriminate against Protestants in Ireland, they will enjoy the same privledges of freedom of speach, religion and assocations as all Irish citizens in a unified country under a democratic constitution.
No doubt, although they won't be able to have abortions. Nor would they, until recently, have been allowed to get divorced. The Republic has (from my point of view) done its fair share of oppressing in its short history - though to be fair nothing like as much as Britain.
People in Manhatten do indeed blow things up, but nothing like on the N Irish scale. The IRA may be as small as Osama Bin Laden's (sp?) gang of intolerant fruitcakes, but they're better organised and probably have more money and more arms. They're definitely more active, and they actually (mostly) live in the country they are fighting against. It makes them hugely more dangerous.
As for the historical grievances, and the bit about 'half the population', they're both true, and if you think Manhatten has anything like them, you should see the amount of hostility people give out when someone British points out that peace is preferable to violence (hint: see the rest of this thread).
If there was "peace and stability" why was there a civil rights campaign???
Because the catholic population of N Ireland was being treated unfairly (to say the least). You can have peace and stability without civil rights - it just tends not to last very long.
IF thats what he meant he's correct. That was pretty bad. However, none of that is happening any more.
''Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted it that way.''
And got the British Army in to enforce that wish.
The British army was sent in to stop nationalist houses being burned. Seems perfectly OK to me. Would you rather they not ?
Your 'mothercountry' never 'let go' anything, it had been taken off their hands by war, in case you forgot, but oops, you will never have known anything about history in the first place.
Thats a matter of opinion. If the British had really wanted to hold on to Ireland they would have. As far as I can tell from my reading of the history it was only the difficulty in finding a solution that would protect both nationalists and unionists that made independance take so long
Regardless of the history, the problem is not the presence of any given group of people on any given bit of soil. The problem is violence and oppression and intolerance. There is plenty of that on both sides
Oh, and my family is probably just as Irish as yours is. They just want to remain part of Britain. I personally don't see one bit of difference in which country N Ireland is part of as long as the violence stops.
Oh and I suppose British military standing outside the polling places when the vote was taken had nothing to do with the outcome. The statistics are crap and everyone who is involved at all with the situation knows it. Tell you what I can post some quotes from Gerry Adams if you want me to. They would be just as accurate as your figures.
To my knowledge such a poll has never been taken. Shows how much you know. However, it is a simple matter of demographics - slightly more than 50% of NI residents are protestant, and slightly less are catholic (by origin, not faith). Protestants tend to be unionist and catholics tend to be nationalist. There are (empirically - you just need to go to Ireland and ask around a bit) there are more catholic unionists than protestant nationalists.
And if you think that fighting for freedom is terrorism then you sir are a very sad person. This is the only bloody war the whole world is not up in arms about the nationals having a right to their homeland, and it pisses me off to no end.
Northern Irish unionists have a right to theirs too. These people's ancestors moved to Ireland, or changed their faith, hundreds of years ago. Does their distant ancestors collusion and/or profiteering deprive them of any right to the land of their birth ?
How about it being illeagle for years and years to speak your native language in your own country, or drafting young men and sending them off to a war their homeland wasn't involved in.
This happened around a hundred years ago. Noone alive today was even borne then.
As an Irishman and a protestant it really gets under my skin when Americans who probably haven't even been to Ireland think an understanding of Irish politics can be genetically transmitted.
Firstly let me make it absolutely clear that I believe in self-determination for Ireland (both bits), and the principle of majority consent. Can you say as much ?
I quite agree the Brits should not ever have invaded Ireland. The world would be a much happier place. However, they did. Unless you know a way of reversing history, we have to live with the consequences. Since the majority of the population of Northern Ireland chooses to remain in the UK, the UK government has to keep them there. Do you really think anything else can be done ?
As for the idea the British security service plants bombs, well, yes, maybe they do. It would seem pretty odd for them to go after police and army targets, or unionist bars, but yes, maybe they do. OTOH even what the IRA accepts it has done (and neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein makes any bones about supporting the use of force, even occasionally against protestant civilians) should repel any civilised person. Is the transfer of a tiny scrap of land, whose population doesn't even want it, from one western democracy to another really worth all that blood ? I'll leave you to answer that question yourself.
As for the police - they CAN carry firearms, but this is only done on special occasions. There is no need for the police on the beat to be armed. I can't remember the last time a member of the Gardaí was shot in the line of duty.
The RUC (Northern Ireland's police force) are more or less routinely armed though, or at least they were before the cease-fire.
OK, the English moved in here about 800 years ago, and for most of that time, there had been resistance. For Gods sake, there was the 1916 rising, the War of Independance in the 20's and a civil war after that. Beleive me, there was a LOT more going on than calling the English Bastards. Why don't you get a book on the subject....
Well yes, but I think the poster was referring to the period of relative peace and stability (although not of any kind of social justice) between partition and the civil rights campaign in the North.
Right, several things. See my previous post for starters, but I'll repeat myself if necessary.
Firstly, the IRA may consider itself to be fighting the British government (although thankfully they're on a long term cease-fire at the moment), but the British state considers itself to be fighting terrorism (the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments) by both loyalist (pro-British, usually protestant, but not aligned with today's British government) and republican (pro-Irish, usually catholic, but not aligned with today's Irish government) groups.
I don't understand what you mean by the British army on the streets of Dublin. Dublin is the capital of the republic, and hasn't been part of Britain since the 1920s. Britain makes no claim to the modern Irish state, nor do most unionist groups in the north. The British army carries out some policing duties in the North because they are better trusted than the local police (especially by nationalists).
Nor do I understand what you mean by "terrorism by the British government". Unless you're an out-and-out anarchist nothing the British government has done in N Ireland since the 1970s looks even remotely like terrorism.
What you need to understand is that this is much a more complicated (but lower intensity) conflict than any war, in which their are four identifiable groups prepared to use force (N Irish Loyalists, N Irish Republicans, the Irish Government and the British Government). Since the 1970s the governments have done everything they can to get the two terrorist groups to stop fighting, because while they may sympathise with their aims they are opposed to their methods. Whilst the governments may disagree about methods, they are in essential agreement about priorities.
Prior to that the situation had been basically peaceful (though somewhat unjust to people on the wrong side of the border) since the 1920s when the republic was formed.
Your natural human desire to reduce this to a simple conflict with 2 sides is preventing you from understanding the complexity of the situation.