In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."
>Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
That's because you have no sense of history and why browsers became free (as in cost).
Microsoft abused its monopoly position to essentially make it impossible for anyone to market a browser that was paid for by the users. They licensed Spyglass Mosaic, promising Spyglass that Microsoft would remit a percentage of revenue to Spyglass. Spyglass thought this was great. The thing is that Microsoft gave IE away, so they didn't have to give Spyglass a plug nickel, much to Spyglass' dismay (don't ever "partner" with Microsoft is the lesson here).
But the motivation was not necessarily to shut down Spyglass. The motivation was to choke off the revenue that Netscape was getting for their browser, which was viewed as a threat to Microsoft's Windows OS itself (because a browser is almost a complete OS in itself missing only a few things to turn it into one). The goal was to reduce the amount of money people were willing to pay for a browser to 0 dollars and wreck the market for browsers. It worked, taking Netscape from a healthy growing company to being a minor subsidiary of AOL, bought for a song and then just not existing at all.
Power supplies, especially the ones in computers and in cameras and everything else except things like fluorescent lamp ballasts, have transistors. These transistors get fried at the junctions.
You can't aim a microwave signal at a power line or transformer and get the desired result here. The wavelength is too short.
Note that the fluorescent lights are still on in the room in the photograph.
>Excuse my ignorance on this one, but if the missile disrupts electrical systems, how is a Faraday cage going to help?
The microwaves doesn't cause sufficient voltage spikes in the electrical power going into the building - that takes an EMP to happen. The microwaves causes voltage surges at the junction level in the microelectronics in the machine itself, where the threshold for a "fry" is much lower.
A faraday cage, like the one that keeps you from being irradiated with 1.5kW of radio waves as you stand in front of your microwave oven waiting for the popcorn, would be sufficient to keep the electronics inside the building working. Either build a room or shield the whole building with mesh.
and it seems half the people griping about it who claimed to have used it are really just repeating things they saw on a video, and haven't actually gotten hands on it.
Hi. I'm one of those people who have been dicking around with Windows 8 since within hours of the Developer Preview release.
I personally hate it. I will explain below.
>The funniest are the people who are complaining about the UI being too touch or mouse centric,
See, this is where you are wrong. It's not mouse centric.
Metro/ModernUI/Whatever they are calling it now is touch-centric and mouse navigation of it is full-retard. Because naturally all of us are supposed to want to reach out and swipe our greasy fingers on 24 inch monitors. sneer
Touchscreens are not new. They've been around for decades and the only places they took off were things like factory floor automation and data collection, POS systems, and portable devices, where a mouse and keyboard are either a drawback, wouldn't survive the environment, or are too bulky for portability. They never took off on the desktop, because using one for 8 hours at a desk is crap. Usability after usability study has come out and proved this tiime and again, yet Microsoft believes that the future belongs to touch on the desktop, as if the Mission Impossible fictional UI wasn't total bullshit. To top it off, Metro/Modern takes visual cues and defenestrates them nearly completely - everything is a hot corner or a key macro and the idea of the window is deprecated, even on large displays where there is plenty of room for floating windows and visual cues. Metro is like living in the land that time forgot of TSR task switchers and fullscreen-only programs.
Microsoft went from "we'll use the desktop metaphor for everything, including handhelds" to "we'll use a mobile device touchscreen paradigm for everything including desktops" and both ideas are crap because they ignore the fact that people use different sized formats and devices in different ways. They are still chasing after the completely fictional universal interface much like your lunatic friend who keeps trying to invent perpetual motion machines in his garage. It honestly boggles my mind.
Things like this video are a troll. They do not represent how regular users interact with desktop systems. It is there to imply that everyone who hates metro is dumber than a 3 year old, which frankly par for the course from Softie shills. Softie shills have this unfortunate habit of calling people with criticism of metro "luddites" or "stupid" or "afraid of change." It's an insult. It's much like the top-down thinking from the Gnome devs when they got negative feedback from users. It does nothing but piss people off. It certainly makes me more resolved in my hate for W8 and what the metro interface represents.
And lastly, if you design an interface for 3 year olds and idiots, only 3 year olds and idiots are going to like it. Welcome to the Idiocracy interface.
The licensing thing was basically just the last straw in a long line of disagreements, especially the lack of innovation and communicating and coordinating with the rest of the community, like projects such as KDE and Gnome.
If you think x.org's development is glacial, it's nothing like what XFree86's BS was.
My issue with him was not the EUPL in itself. My issue was his trolling and misstating facts about the FSF and GPL.
The FSF states that they do not have the ability to translate to other languages because they do not have the resources. You need lawyers fluent in translation *and* the laws of the target nation in order to make a faithful translation of the GPL.
He construes this as Anglocentrism, which is a word defined as "believing in english as superior" - a kind of bigotry- which the FSF's position clearly is not. It's a lie on his part.
The EUPL is also not a pan-european license. It is an EU license, taking into account *only* EU laws. Thus it is not translated into Norwegian, for example. Norwegian is not a valid language for the EUPL not because the people who wrote the EUPL are bigots, but Norwegian law is slightly different than EU law.
QED. He is trolling.
Language is irrelevant in determining if a license is valid or not.
The only reason these licenses are valid outside of their host regions is because of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention was not done to make all copyright laws the same, but to get all signatories to recognize the rights of each other. A license written in Australian English is just as valid as a license written in Danish, because both countries are signatories. This removes the need to publish a license in every language on the planet.
Finally:
>IMO, the many FSF followers should stop considering the EUPL as a sacrilege
Really? The only place I've heard this is here, in your message. I have not heard it anywhere else.
The original reason for forcing kids to go to school in the US and Canada was that they were taking all the jobs, since they were willing to be paid less. The movement to give the jobs back to adults at the higher pay somehow morphed into some valiant effort to "protect" "children."
Or just look up anything about the beginning of compulsory education, it will show you how it was intertwined with the end of child labor.
You have your history mixed up. Compulsory education became integrated with the labor movement near the end, but the motivations for compulsory education began not with the labor movement but with the churches. The beginning of compulsory education was in 1642 in Massachusetts, well before the labor movement. Because you can't read the Bible if you don't know how to read. The Dutch Reformed Church was also instrumental in this in New York. "Even old New York was once New Amsterdam"
Massachusetts' truancy act was in 1852. Connecticut's in 1842. The CT law also limited child labor to 10 hours when not attending school. But back then, the minimum requirement was for 3 months out of the year, not the 9 we have today.
So the truth comes out about your previous comment about the GPL being bad and anglocentric and the FSF treating non-english speakers as "second class humans"
> However it seems to me that using the GPL for the freedom of the peoples are shortsighted at best.
Say what?
>rant on english only >eupl
Is written with European Union Law in mind.
To turn your argument around and do some substitution, the Eurocentrism of the EUPL is a bad thing, especially since it doesn't apply to Brazil, Philippines or China. How come the EUPL isn't translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Tagalog, or Cantonese? The European Commission certainly has more resources than the FSF, so why don't they do it?
Your argument is specious and hypocritical.
> In fact, the FSF treat non-english speaker as second-class human, > Anglocentrism link
The reasons given in the FSF link you gave do not match up with the definition of Anglocentrism. Indeed, the first sentence in the FSF link you gave indicates that in a perfect world translations would be desirable, but due to the properties of legal language being much like a programming language and laws in different countries being, you know, different, it is not always feasible or reasonable to do so. Indeed, to make another real-world comparison, the Treaty of Tripoli is written in Arabic. An English translation presented to the US Congress was not the official one - it was there for explanation. The official ratified treaty is the Arabic version and the US is bound to it. There are other translations, like the Italian version, but that's not binding either.
But not only that, to get back to the original article and to get really on topic, the requirements for winning are not that you must be a GPL supporter. Indeed, Theo de Raadt is the most angry and vociferous troll against the GPL, yet he's won. Other winners don't necessarily have English as a first or third language. Miguel's native language is Spanish. So there goes your other claim of Anglocentrism.
You are just a troll here to bash the GPL and push Eurocentrism. Not only Eurocentrism, but European Union Centrism.
>B) Water content of veggies is unlikely to be a significant portion of the water you ingest
Water is water. It is H20. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
All else is not water.
Vegetables and fruits contain water. They also contain the minerals that they grew in, in different ratios and concentrations depending on the location. Oenophiles take this into account when they talk about terroir.
You are waving your hands and saying that this doesn't matter, which is BS.
>It's only money laundering if what you're laundering is money...
This is patently false. Any transaction of anything to obfuscate illegality is per-se money laundering. It doesn't have to be money. It can be gold, silver, rodents of unusual size (in cages, natch), other actual currencies, baseball cards, bitcoins, or bags of salt. It can be anything.
There is a guy in RI who is spending the rest of his natural life in jail (and then some after he is dead if you go by how many years he was sentenced to) by laundering money for the mob via gold transactions in the jewelry business he used to run.
And after reading this as a response to my original message, I have to conclude that libertarian thought is a gedankenexperiment that exists only in an entirely fictional universe.
To make a direct analogy:
Libertarianism is to social structure and dynamics as perpetual motion is to physics.
1. You run a mailing list 2 You *claim* that it's opt-in 3 Somehow Spamhaus gets your list in its honeypots 4. Spamhaus lists you 5. Afilias nukes you, all 10 of your domains. 6. You easily get your domains off Spamhaus by filling out a form 7. Somehow this is Spamhaus' fault and not Afilias for giving you the run-around
Spamhaus has servers that collect spam from the internet by just being on the internet. Spammers blindly send mail to addresses and the Spamhaus servers read the headers to see where they came from. Headers can be forged, but a good algorithm can do the same thing that a human does when reading a header - follow the chain of Received: until it hits the inevitably forged nonexistent or non-sequitur domain. The one before that gets listed at Spamhaus.
Spamhaus has no users on its honeypots that subscribe to lists. They are just "there" on the net silently collecting spam and they give no 5xx or 4xx errors (because, you know, why bother?). The only way for the honeypot to get messages from you is if your list actually contains the addresses of the honeypots.
Spamhaus has a good reputation. They are probably the most reliable blacklisting service out there and this maddens spammers to no end. There are others that shouldn't be used, but Spamhaus is used by nearly everyone who uses a blacklist because of its accuracy.
>If Spamhaus signed up one of their "spamtrap" email addresses to our mailing list
Slashdot Mirror
State law cannot supersede NAFTA.
Go ahead, find a state full of Republicans that successfully made NAFTA irrelevant in their state.
>election laws are purely state level
Doesn't matter.
--
BMO
Abbot can stuff his dick back in his pants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_v._Hylton
The case itself: http://preview.tinyurl.com/9es2mes (shortened, because it's a google books link)
--
BMO
>Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
That's because you have no sense of history and why browsers became free (as in cost).
Microsoft abused its monopoly position to essentially make it impossible for anyone to market a browser that was paid for by the users. They licensed Spyglass Mosaic, promising Spyglass that Microsoft would remit a percentage of revenue to Spyglass. Spyglass thought this was great. The thing is that Microsoft gave IE away, so they didn't have to give Spyglass a plug nickel, much to Spyglass' dismay (don't ever "partner" with Microsoft is the lesson here).
But the motivation was not necessarily to shut down Spyglass. The motivation was to choke off the revenue that Netscape was getting for their browser, which was viewed as a threat to Microsoft's Windows OS itself (because a browser is almost a complete OS in itself missing only a few things to turn it into one). The goal was to reduce the amount of money people were willing to pay for a browser to 0 dollars and wreck the market for browsers. It worked, taking Netscape from a healthy growing company to being a minor subsidiary of AOL, bought for a song and then just not existing at all.
--
BMO
But it doesn't rhyme.
(new englander here, we don't pronounce Rs)
--
BMO
Power supplies, especially the ones in computers and in cameras and everything else except things like fluorescent lamp ballasts, have transistors. These transistors get fried at the junctions.
You can't aim a microwave signal at a power line or transformer and get the desired result here. The wavelength is too short.
Note that the fluorescent lights are still on in the room in the photograph.
--
BMO
>Nope, a Faraday cage is not 100% effective against microwaves
Microwave oven manufacturers would disagree with you. It's not magic.
--
BMO
>Excuse my ignorance on this one, but if the missile disrupts electrical systems, how is a Faraday cage going to help?
The microwaves doesn't cause sufficient voltage spikes in the electrical power going into the building - that takes an EMP to happen. The microwaves causes voltage surges at the junction level in the microelectronics in the machine itself, where the threshold for a "fry" is much lower.
A faraday cage, like the one that keeps you from being irradiated with 1.5kW of radio waves as you stand in front of your microwave oven waiting for the popcorn, would be sufficient to keep the electronics inside the building working. Either build a room or shield the whole building with mesh.
Eine kleine chicken wire
--
BMO
and it seems half the people griping about it who claimed to have used it are really just repeating things they saw on a video, and haven't actually gotten hands on it.
Hi. I'm one of those people who have been dicking around with Windows 8 since within hours of the Developer Preview release.
I personally hate it. I will explain below.
>The funniest are the people who are complaining about the UI being too touch or mouse centric,
See, this is where you are wrong. It's not mouse centric.
Metro/ModernUI/Whatever they are calling it now is touch-centric and mouse navigation of it is full-retard. Because naturally all of us are supposed to want to reach out and swipe our greasy fingers on 24 inch monitors. sneer
Touchscreens are not new. They've been around for decades and the only places they took off were things like factory floor automation and data collection, POS systems, and portable devices, where a mouse and keyboard are either a drawback, wouldn't survive the environment, or are too bulky for portability. They never took off on the desktop, because using one for 8 hours at a desk is crap. Usability after usability study has come out and proved this tiime and again, yet Microsoft believes that the future belongs to touch on the desktop, as if the Mission Impossible fictional UI wasn't total bullshit. To top it off, Metro/Modern takes visual cues and defenestrates them nearly completely - everything is a hot corner or a key macro and the idea of the window is deprecated, even on large displays where there is plenty of room for floating windows and visual cues. Metro is like living in the land that time forgot of TSR task switchers and fullscreen-only programs.
Microsoft went from "we'll use the desktop metaphor for everything, including handhelds" to "we'll use a mobile device touchscreen paradigm for everything including desktops" and both ideas are crap because they ignore the fact that people use different sized formats and devices in different ways. They are still chasing after the completely fictional universal interface much like your lunatic friend who keeps trying to invent perpetual motion machines in his garage. It honestly boggles my mind.
Things like this video are a troll. They do not represent how regular users interact with desktop systems. It is there to imply that everyone who hates metro is dumber than a 3 year old, which frankly par for the course from Softie shills. Softie shills have this unfortunate habit of calling people with criticism of metro "luddites" or "stupid" or "afraid of change." It's an insult. It's much like the top-down thinking from the Gnome devs when they got negative feedback from users. It does nothing but piss people off. It certainly makes me more resolved in my hate for W8 and what the metro interface represents.
And lastly, if you design an interface for 3 year olds and idiots, only 3 year olds and idiots are going to like it. Welcome to the Idiocracy interface.
--
BMO
The licensing thing was basically just the last straw in a long line of disagreements, especially the lack of innovation and communicating and coordinating with the rest of the community, like projects such as KDE and Gnome.
If you think x.org's development is glacial, it's nothing like what XFree86's BS was.
--
BMO
My issue with him was not the EUPL in itself. My issue was his trolling and misstating facts about the FSF and GPL.
The FSF states that they do not have the ability to translate to other languages because they do not have the resources. You need lawyers fluent in translation *and* the laws of the target nation in order to make a faithful translation of the GPL.
He construes this as Anglocentrism, which is a word defined as "believing in english as superior" - a kind of bigotry- which the FSF's position clearly is not. It's a lie on his part.
The EUPL is also not a pan-european license. It is an EU license, taking into account *only* EU laws. Thus it is not translated into Norwegian, for example. Norwegian is not a valid language for the EUPL not because the people who wrote the EUPL are bigots, but Norwegian law is slightly different than EU law.
QED. He is trolling.
Language is irrelevant in determining if a license is valid or not.
The only reason these licenses are valid outside of their host regions is because of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention was not done to make all copyright laws the same, but to get all signatories to recognize the rights of each other. A license written in Australian English is just as valid as a license written in Danish, because both countries are signatories. This removes the need to publish a license in every language on the planet.
Finally:
>IMO, the many FSF followers should stop considering the EUPL as a sacrilege
Really? The only place I've heard this is here, in your message. I have not heard it anywhere else.
--
BMO
The original reason for forcing kids to go to school in the US and Canada was that they were taking all the jobs, since they were willing to be paid less. The movement to give the jobs back to adults at the higher pay somehow morphed into some valiant effort to "protect" "children."
Or just look up anything about the beginning of compulsory education, it will show you how it was intertwined with the end of child labor.
You have your history mixed up. Compulsory education became integrated with the labor movement near the end, but the motivations for compulsory education began not with the labor movement but with the churches. The beginning of compulsory education was in 1642 in Massachusetts, well before the labor movement. Because you can't read the Bible if you don't know how to read. The Dutch Reformed Church was also instrumental in this in New York. "Even old New York was once New Amsterdam"
Massachusetts' truancy act was in 1852. Connecticut's in 1842. The CT law also limited child labor to 10 hours when not attending school. But back then, the minimum requirement was for 3 months out of the year, not the 9 we have today.
--
BMO
So obviously all this irrelevant stuff means he deserved to die.
Funny how you can't stand behind your assertions with at least a username.
Anonymous coward indeed.
--
BMO
You got modded down with a bunch of overrateds.
Racists aren't just cowards in meatspace.
--
BMO
Citation needed. And Alex Jones quality citations are not allowed.
--
BMO
Because in the US and Canada, there are limits on how many hours kids can work. They're supposed to be able to go to school.
In China? Not so much.
--
BMO
>It still is better than the GPL
Circular argument is circular. I think we're done here. I think you should re-read your message and smell the reeking hypocrisy.
>my inflammatory language
Like you didn't say that non-english speakers are treated like second class humans. That's not only inflammatory, it's a lie.
This makes you an asshole of the first order.
Meet your new status.
--
BMO
So the truth comes out about your previous comment about the GPL being bad and anglocentric and the FSF treating non-english speakers as "second class humans"
You are a Microsoft shill.
Disgusting.
--
BMO
> However it seems to me that using the GPL for the freedom of the peoples are shortsighted at best.
Say what?
>rant on english only
>eupl
Is written with European Union Law in mind.
To turn your argument around and do some substitution, the Eurocentrism of the EUPL is a bad thing, especially since it doesn't apply to Brazil, Philippines or China. How come the EUPL isn't translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Tagalog, or Cantonese? The European Commission certainly has more resources than the FSF, so why don't they do it?
Your argument is specious and hypocritical.
> In fact, the FSF treat non-english speaker as second-class human,
> Anglocentrism link
The reasons given in the FSF link you gave do not match up with the definition of Anglocentrism. Indeed, the first sentence in the FSF link you gave indicates that in a perfect world translations would be desirable, but due to the properties of legal language being much like a programming language and laws in different countries being, you know, different, it is not always feasible or reasonable to do so. Indeed, to make another real-world comparison, the Treaty of Tripoli is written in Arabic. An English translation presented to the US Congress was not the official one - it was there for explanation. The official ratified treaty is the Arabic version and the US is bound to it. There are other translations, like the Italian version, but that's not binding either.
But not only that, to get back to the original article and to get really on topic, the requirements for winning are not that you must be a GPL supporter. Indeed, Theo de Raadt is the most angry and vociferous troll against the GPL, yet he's won. Other winners don't necessarily have English as a first or third language. Miguel's native language is Spanish. So there goes your other claim of Anglocentrism.
You are just a troll here to bash the GPL and push Eurocentrism. Not only Eurocentrism, but European Union Centrism.
--
BMO
You sound like a butthurt spammer.
--
BMO
>B) Water content of veggies is unlikely to be a significant portion of the water you ingest
Water is water. It is H20. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
All else is not water.
Vegetables and fruits contain water. They also contain the minerals that they grew in, in different ratios and concentrations depending on the location. Oenophiles take this into account when they talk about terroir.
You are waving your hands and saying that this doesn't matter, which is BS.
--
BMO
>It's only money laundering if what you're laundering is money...
This is patently false. Any transaction of anything to obfuscate illegality is per-se money laundering. It doesn't have to be money. It can be gold, silver, rodents of unusual size (in cages, natch), other actual currencies, baseball cards, bitcoins, or bags of salt. It can be anything.
There is a guy in RI who is spending the rest of his natural life in jail (and then some after he is dead if you go by how many years he was sentenced to) by laundering money for the mob via gold transactions in the jewelry business he used to run.
The loopholes are covered. Bitcoin is covered.
--
BMO
>Shipping food a long way is almost universally too expensive to work.
So when I get tomatoes, cucumbers, grapes, etc, in the dead of winter, that's all grown locally?
Why am I not subsisting on turnips and potatoes in December?
--
BMO
And after reading this as a response to my original message, I have to conclude that libertarian thought is a gedankenexperiment that exists only in an entirely fictional universe.
To make a direct analogy:
Libertarianism is to social structure and dynamics as perpetual motion is to physics.
--
BMO
> Most products are made with local water.
You haven't been in a supermarket in 30 years, have you?
--
BMO
In summary:
1. You run a mailing list
2 You *claim* that it's opt-in
3 Somehow Spamhaus gets your list in its honeypots
4. Spamhaus lists you
5. Afilias nukes you, all 10 of your domains.
6. You easily get your domains off Spamhaus by filling out a form
7. Somehow this is Spamhaus' fault and not Afilias for giving you the run-around
Spamhaus has servers that collect spam from the internet by just being on the internet. Spammers blindly send mail to addresses and the Spamhaus servers read the headers to see where they came from. Headers can be forged, but a good algorithm can do the same thing that a human does when reading a header - follow the chain of Received: until it hits the inevitably forged nonexistent or non-sequitur domain. The one before that gets listed at Spamhaus.
Spamhaus has no users on its honeypots that subscribe to lists. They are just "there" on the net silently collecting spam and they give no 5xx or 4xx errors (because, you know, why bother?). The only way for the honeypot to get messages from you is if your list actually contains the addresses of the honeypots.
Spamhaus has a good reputation. They are probably the most reliable blacklisting service out there and this maddens spammers to no end. There are others that shouldn't be used, but Spamhaus is used by nearly everyone who uses a blacklist because of its accuracy.
>If Spamhaus signed up one of their "spamtrap" email addresses to our mailing list
It doesn't work that way. Clean up your list.
--
BMO