Not in matters involving due process. The Supreme Court issued a decision this summer that affirmed the right of non-US citizens to be released from incarceration after serving their terms.
They said you could not hold someone without charge. That is a fundemental right of due process.
The odds for winning the lottery are printed on the back of the ticket when you purchase it. I don't see your calculation for the odds on getting convicted for a crime you didn't commit.
Considering the fact that just about EVERYTHING is now illegal in the US (except to own a gun), you could lose a large portion of your life, if not the whole thing, on a poorly defended case.
Your glee may be short lived. There is the tiny consideration of double jeapordy involved here. Since Einhorn has been tried and convicted by a court in US jurisdiction, he may, because of PA's fuckup, get a "get out of jail free" card on appeal.
Get a life, the guy the executed in Texas was a murdering sack of shit.
I wasn't speaking about his guilt or innocence. You apparently got so caught up in being happy about this guy's death that you missed the point: lack of due process.
It is a fact that innocent people have been released from death row in the US. You should pray that due process allows you, a non-US citizen, the right of due process.
Otherwise you could end up dead for something you didn't do.
Why should a non citizen of the U.S. be afforded the same rights as a citizen.
1) He has the right to meet with representatives of the Russian Embassy. That has not happened. This is a right guaranteed by treaty.
2) It doesn't matter whether he is a US citizen or not, he has a right to due process.
Look at the hell the U.S. had to go through to get a convicted murderer(Ira Einhorn) extradited from France.
Not exactly apples to apples comparison, is it?
But the Einhorn case could have been sped up if it hadn't been for the idiots in Pennsylvania trying him in absentia. That was a screw up on their part, not France's.
Do you see the difference?
Why should the U.S. afford a foreign national the opportunity to escape?
Why have bail at all then? Anyone could flee from the jurisdiction they are indicted in, can't they? Take his passport.
Sorry, but the constitution just doesn't come into play in this instance.
Why, just because you've said so?
The Supreme Court has said otherwise. They still gave Cuban's the right to due process (it took forever, but they got their day in court) when Castro emptied his jails and sent the felons north. The Supreme Court just told the Immigration Service that they cannot hold foreign nationals without charging them - even when they have served their sentences.
Sounds like due process to me (derived, my dear colleage, from the Constitution).
Foreign nationals should behave themselves in any country they visit.
That is a given, isn't it?
Are you saying that we shouldn't assume he is innocent until proven guilty?
Just because the the U.S. appears to be more liberal with accused criminals than many other countries does not mean that the same liberal treatment can or should be extended to a foreign national.
Right; let's just jettison the Constitution when it becomes a problem.
I hope you're not running for an elected office.
Non citizens should be made fully aware that they neither deserve nor get the same priviledges as a citizen.
And on that point, as with so many others in this thread, you are just dead wrong.
As has been pointed out several times in regard to this topic, many people commit crimes and are released on bond. Some of the crimes are more heinous than the one that Sklyarov is accused of.
But that is hardly the point. There is due process. He is presumed innocent UNTIL THE STATE PROVES HE IS GUILTY.
Apparently the education system you attended failed to make that point clear to you in civics class.
It happens every day, people commit crimes, they go to jail.
Face it, this guy will rot in jail before the public has any idea that he even exists. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the public does find out that a 26-year-old Russian citizen is being held without bond in a US jail. American public opinion will not be swayed to express outrage because he isn't a US citizen held in a foreign jail.
The State of Texas executed a foreign national without giving him right to meet with his embassy. This is a right guaranteed to foreign nationals by treaty. The fact that someone could be held without access to their national ambassadorial staff is pitiful enough. The fact that they can be held without due process guaranteed under the Constitution is scandalous.
I'm probably like most folks: I'm of two minds on this issue.
While on the one hand I would like to get higher bandwidth with more options than I currenly have regarding internet offerings, I am also unwilling to pay $100 a month just to view webpages.
Right now I pay for satellite broadcast service for my television. I pay a monthly rate to have telephone service. I also pay a small fee to get internet service. If I could get high-speed internet and pay a slightly higher fee to get my television wrapped into one package, I would do it. It isn't unusual to pay more for more services; it is a question of releasing the public domain of the internet to get these addtional services. That is where I draw the line.
I can live with 28K-128K bandwith if it means roughly $15/mo to do basic research, but I would balk at paying more if it meant giving up public control of HOW the service is delivered. If private companies need revenue to increase the bandwidth to serve more customers (read, businesses), then a sliding scale of service is the answer, not giving up a public utility to private control.
The companies who plugged into the internet to get cheap connectivity should not be dictating how the rest of us use this resource just because the quality is poor. Let them build their own internet and sell it. My satellite company already does.
Your comments were directed at SOFTWARE, but the topic being discussed was a HARDWARE vendor.
Now you seem to be skipping around your first assertion that Linux-based operations could never generate a profit.
Face it, the companies listed by Squadboy are as valid to this discussion as Rebel - ergo, a hardware vendor who sold equipment relying entirely on an open source solution.
All of your gyrations to get out of being tagged a MSFT wannabe are just evidence that you haven't a clue.
I do; I'm a geologist. I'm used to thinking of time in infinite measure, and I am also accustomed to thinking of data in global patterns.
I allow that it is possible (heck, I hope it's probable...) that we can move on to other planets, solar systems, or galaxies before our resources here run out. We may be drilling planets in
Andromeda for oil before we run out here on Earth.
Great! Let's get started by drilling the Front Range.
Even so, you do understand that the universe is finite?
Is it? Where is your data to support that conclusion? (I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just a skeptic) We have seen "back" in time, but we have no map of the universe (that I am aware of) that shows that it is finite.
Or are you willing to admit that maybe we won't have answered all of our fuel problems in the next hundred years? Or will it take one
hundred? Maybe we'll run out of fossil fuels in fifty years? What about the recent rise in gas prices in the US, due to low supply? What about the fact that we're going to have to drill in our national
parks to get that much-needed oil? What happens when that supply runs out?
1. I am willing to concede that we have not solved all of our energy requirements for any period of human evolution.
2. When oil "runs out", we will exploit another source of fuel, or the population will trim itself to respond to the decline in energy reserves. Unless, of course, we have developed the logistics to transport fuel from Jupiter (or Andromeda) to Earth.
3. Drilling the national parks for oil is a waste of time. I think once the oil companies look at the cost of drilling in these environments, they will do what they always do: buy it off the dock in Galveston.
4. Oil is a commodity and is sometimes subject to artificial supply constraints. However, the OPEC countries are as dependant on oil revenues as we are on supply. The price of oil collapsed in the mid-80s as a result of the US trimming its demand for foreign oil. That sent shockwaves through the OPEC countries and was instrumental in Mexico's economic collapse. The leaders in the countries of the Middle East rely on economic development to hold power. Without oil revenue, they become extremely unstable. In short, the ruling families in Saudi Arabia know that they must walk a tight rope maintain a price that supports development in their own country (not possible at $10US/bbl) and keeps the rest of the world using oil (unsustainable above ~$30US/bbl).
The universe is a closed system.
Hmmm...
It has finite resources.
Finite in what regard? If we quit using oil tomorrow, the supply would suddenly become infinite based on use.
And on a more practical level, the earth (unless you convert everything to solar, which, surprise, I am all for) is effectively a finite system as
well.
Agreed.
Only lazy minds and dreamy-eyed technocrats will blindly believe that somebody, somewhere will invent a panacea.
I believe that desperate measures will encourage the development of new fuel sources. Once oil is gone, there will be extremely high incentives for a new source to come online.
That is a pragmatic view, not a dreamy-eyed technocratic one.
It's not about global warming, really. At its most basic level, it's like being locked in an airtight cell. Even if you think you can pry open the door, you don't engage in a lot of heavy breathing while
you try to figure it out.
I can't figure out why everyone is so freaked out about what the future holds anywhere beyond 100 years. Technological advances make prediction of future catastrophies impossible. Our ancestors 5 million years ago thought very little about what the OPEC benchmark price on sweet crude would be. Projecting our own energy problems out 1,000 or more years is an exercise in futility. We have no idea what products or sources of energy we will have made economically viable in that time frame.
As for what happens to the Earth in extended timeframes, there are two possible scenarios:
1. We burn up because Sol expands to Red Giant stage and consumes the terrestrial planets, or
2. Sol supernovas and takes the whole solar system with it.
In either case, if any intelligent life is to survive in the future, it will have to leave this rock eventually. All discussion of preserving this planet in perpetuity is meaningless drivel.
Temperature elevations are closely related to a rise in CO2 emmisions. The relationship has been discussed for more than a decade, although the public debate has really just begun in the US. The missing data include the relationship that exists between anthropomorphic sources of CO2 and the current rise of global temperature. The extremists on both sides of this issue have targeted this discussion for their own variations of propaganda and misinformation.
The Earth has gone through several interglacial warming cycles throughout the last few millions of years. Indeed, there is ample evidence that at various times during the span of this planet's existence that global temperatures have been above that measured during the short timeframe that humans have occupied. What caused these global temperature variations is the subject of numerous research efforts. The conclusions of these research projects vary from changes in the amount of CO2 that can be stored in the world's oceans to the density of terristrial plant life.
My greatest concern isn't necessarily that the Earth may be warming; that may have occurred regardless of the activity of humans. What concerns me is the adaptation that we may lack when sudden and possibly catastrophic changes in ocean thermohaline currents occur. Can we, as a species, adapt quickly enough to make significant changes to our livestyles to adjust to a shorter growing season in the north; can we migrate millions of people from what will become uninhabitable areas during extended winters in the northern hemisphere; will we survive our retreat back to the equator without hostile action with our southern neighbors?
Slashdot Mirror
They said you could not hold someone without charge. That is a fundemental right of due process.
Considering the fact that just about EVERYTHING is now illegal in the US (except to own a gun), you could lose a large portion of your life, if not the whole thing, on a poorly defended case.
Still want to trade the odds?
The software in question was written in Russia.
Your glee may be short lived. There is the tiny consideration of double jeapordy involved here. Since Einhorn has been tried and convicted by a court in US jurisdiction, he may, because of PA's fuckup, get a "get out of jail free" card on appeal.
I wasn't speaking about his guilt or innocence. You apparently got so caught up in being happy about this guy's death that you missed the point: lack of due process.
It is a fact that innocent people have been released from death row in the US. You should pray that due process allows you, a non-US citizen, the right of due process.
Otherwise you could end up dead for something you didn't do.
But that could be okay with you, right?
1) He has the right to meet with representatives of the Russian Embassy. That has not happened. This is a right guaranteed by treaty.
2) It doesn't matter whether he is a US citizen or not, he has a right to due process.
Look at the hell the U.S. had to go through to get a convicted murderer(Ira Einhorn) extradited from France.
Not exactly apples to apples comparison, is it?
But the Einhorn case could have been sped up if it hadn't been for the idiots in Pennsylvania trying him in absentia. That was a screw up on their part, not France's.
Do you see the difference?
Why should the U.S. afford a foreign national the opportunity to escape?
Why have bail at all then? Anyone could flee from the jurisdiction they are indicted in, can't they? Take his passport.
Sorry, but the constitution just doesn't come into play in this instance.
Why, just because you've said so?
The Supreme Court has said otherwise. They still gave Cuban's the right to due process (it took forever, but they got their day in court) when Castro emptied his jails and sent the felons north. The Supreme Court just told the Immigration Service that they cannot hold foreign nationals without charging them - even when they have served their sentences.
Sounds like due process to me (derived, my dear colleage, from the Constitution).
Foreign nationals should behave themselves in any country they visit.
That is a given, isn't it?
Are you saying that we shouldn't assume he is innocent until proven guilty?
Just because the the U.S. appears to be more liberal with accused criminals than many other countries does not mean that the same liberal treatment can or should be extended to a foreign national.
Right; let's just jettison the Constitution when it becomes a problem.
I hope you're not running for an elected office.
Non citizens should be made fully aware that they neither deserve nor get the same priviledges as a citizen.
And on that point, as with so many others in this thread, you are just dead wrong.
But that is hardly the point. There is due process. He is presumed innocent UNTIL THE STATE PROVES HE IS GUILTY.
Apparently the education system you attended failed to make that point clear to you in civics class.
It happens every day, people commit crimes, they go to jail.
That statement proves my point.
The State of Texas executed a foreign national without giving him right to meet with his embassy. This is a right guaranteed to foreign nationals by treaty. The fact that someone could be held without access to their national ambassadorial staff is pitiful enough. The fact that they can be held without due process guaranteed under the Constitution is scandalous.
But the public just doesn't care....
It is fucking depressing.
While on the one hand I would like to get higher bandwidth with more options than I currenly have regarding internet offerings, I am also unwilling to pay $100 a month just to view webpages.
Right now I pay for satellite broadcast service for my television. I pay a monthly rate to have telephone service. I also pay a small fee to get internet service. If I could get high-speed internet and pay a slightly higher fee to get my television wrapped into one package, I would do it. It isn't unusual to pay more for more services; it is a question of releasing the public domain of the internet to get these addtional services. That is where I draw the line.
I can live with 28K-128K bandwith if it means roughly $15/mo to do basic research, but I would balk at paying more if it meant giving up public control of HOW the service is delivered. If private companies need revenue to increase the bandwidth to serve more customers (read, businesses), then a sliding scale of service is the answer, not giving up a public utility to private control.
The companies who plugged into the internet to get cheap connectivity should not be dictating how the rest of us use this resource just because the quality is poor. Let them build their own internet and sell it. My satellite company already does.
Previous experience.
I know plenty of people who hate Microsoft and consider business Linux a pathetic joke.
Sure - Mac/Solaris/Amiga/BeOS/*BSD users don't particularly like Linux.
Only the Micro$oft Drones write with such disgust about Linux.
Now you seem to be skipping around your first assertion that Linux-based operations could never generate a profit.
Face it, the companies listed by Squadboy are as valid to this discussion as Rebel - ergo, a hardware vendor who sold equipment relying entirely on an open source solution.
All of your gyrations to get out of being tagged a MSFT wannabe are just evidence that you haven't a clue.
>VA Linux seems to think otherwise...
TiVo and IBM seem to think otherwise to your otherwise....
Have we approached infinity yet?
How about the list of businesses provided by Squadboy who are profitable using Linux? Did you even read the list?
How does it feel to be a corporate whore?
I hope your asbestos underwear is composed entirely of crocidolite.
Yeah, they were pretty accomodating when we took California, Arizona, and New Mexico. They put up a struggle for Texas (can't see why, really).
I saw it. Good comment and correction.
I do; I'm a geologist. I'm used to thinking of time in infinite measure, and I am also accustomed to thinking of data in global patterns.
I allow that it is possible (heck, I hope it's probable...) that we can move on to other planets, solar systems, or galaxies before our resources here run out. We may be drilling planets in Andromeda for oil before we run out here on Earth.
Great! Let's get started by drilling the Front Range.
Even so, you do understand that the universe is finite?
Is it? Where is your data to support that conclusion? (I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just a skeptic) We have seen "back" in time, but we have no map of the universe (that I am aware of) that shows that it is finite.
Or are you willing to admit that maybe we won't have answered all of our fuel problems in the next hundred years? Or will it take one hundred? Maybe we'll run out of fossil fuels in fifty years? What about the recent rise in gas prices in the US, due to low supply? What about the fact that we're going to have to drill in our national parks to get that much-needed oil? What happens when that supply runs out?
1. I am willing to concede that we have not solved all of our energy requirements for any period of human evolution.
2. When oil "runs out", we will exploit another source of fuel, or the population will trim itself to respond to the decline in energy reserves. Unless, of course, we have developed the logistics to transport fuel from Jupiter (or Andromeda) to Earth.
3. Drilling the national parks for oil is a waste of time. I think once the oil companies look at the cost of drilling in these environments, they will do what they always do: buy it off the dock in Galveston.
4. Oil is a commodity and is sometimes subject to artificial supply constraints. However, the OPEC countries are as dependant on oil revenues as we are on supply. The price of oil collapsed in the mid-80s as a result of the US trimming its demand for foreign oil. That sent shockwaves through the OPEC countries and was instrumental in Mexico's economic collapse. The leaders in the countries of the Middle East rely on economic development to hold power. Without oil revenue, they become extremely unstable. In short, the ruling families in Saudi Arabia know that they must walk a tight rope maintain a price that supports development in their own country (not possible at $10US/bbl) and keeps the rest of the world using oil (unsustainable above ~$30US/bbl).
The universe is a closed system.
Hmmm...
It has finite resources.
Finite in what regard? If we quit using oil tomorrow, the supply would suddenly become infinite based on use.
And on a more practical level, the earth (unless you convert everything to solar, which, surprise, I am all for) is effectively a finite system as well.
Agreed.
Only lazy minds and dreamy-eyed technocrats will blindly believe that somebody, somewhere will invent a panacea.
I believe that desperate measures will encourage the development of new fuel sources. Once oil is gone, there will be extremely high incentives for a new source to come online.
That is a pragmatic view, not a dreamy-eyed technocratic one.
It's not about global warming, really. At its most basic level, it's like being locked in an airtight cell. Even if you think you can pry open the door, you don't engage in a lot of heavy breathing while you try to figure it out.
I can't figure out why everyone is so freaked out about what the future holds anywhere beyond 100 years. Technological advances make prediction of future catastrophies impossible. Our ancestors 5 million years ago thought very little about what the OPEC benchmark price on sweet crude would be. Projecting our own energy problems out 1,000 or more years is an exercise in futility. We have no idea what products or sources of energy we will have made economically viable in that time frame.
As for what happens to the Earth in extended timeframes, there are two possible scenarios:
1. We burn up because Sol expands to Red Giant stage and consumes the terrestrial planets, or
2. Sol supernovas and takes the whole solar system with it.
In either case, if any intelligent life is to survive in the future, it will have to leave this rock eventually. All discussion of preserving this planet in perpetuity is meaningless drivel.
I saw no reference to ActiveX or DirectX in DeadPrez's comments.
Counter-whack with a cluestick.
Not meant as a flame; I would really like to know how this puts more MSFT stuff in the hands of Linux users.
However, there is a town that would be consumed by a mud flow if Mt. Rainier were to pop again (see Osceola Mudflow).
Step outside and look up at the sun. You do not live in a closed system.
The change in water level will not come from melting at the north pole. Nearly all of the ice at the south pole and on Greenland is on land.
It's just a theory.. So are electromagnetics. Did your computer stop working?
The Earth has gone through several interglacial warming cycles throughout the last few millions of years. Indeed, there is ample evidence that at various times during the span of this planet's existence that global temperatures have been above that measured during the short timeframe that humans have occupied. What caused these global temperature variations is the subject of numerous research efforts. The conclusions of these research projects vary from changes in the amount of CO2 that can be stored in the world's oceans to the density of terristrial plant life.
My greatest concern isn't necessarily that the Earth may be warming; that may have occurred regardless of the activity of humans. What concerns me is the adaptation that we may lack when sudden and possibly catastrophic changes in ocean thermohaline currents occur. Can we, as a species, adapt quickly enough to make significant changes to our livestyles to adjust to a shorter growing season in the north; can we migrate millions of people from what will become uninhabitable areas during extended winters in the northern hemisphere; will we survive our retreat back to the equator without hostile action with our southern neighbors?
Then shouldn't your username be "money"?