One example.. 18th. If that wasn't on a whim, due to a small group of fanatics then I don't know what is.
They were neither a small group (it takes overwhelming popular support to get an amendment passed) or acting on a whim (their movement had been around a really long time). The "fanatics" part is awfully subjective.
Tearing it down? . tearing down a creation they felt was 'right' and would stand the test of time? No, they would have never conceived of anyone tearing down their creation.
First, it would be awfully easy for them to conceive of someone destroying the government they just created. They were revolutionaries. Pull your head out of your ass and understand the implications of that.
Second, they made the constitution flexible through the amendment process because they knew the design of the government had to bend, rather than break. Come on kid, this is basic stuff. They wrote about it all the time. The first thing they did was tweak the design, in the form of the bill of rights.
As far as I can see, the testing on Linux is "write a bunch of code and toss it out where the suck, er, end users can test it." Back when this was all in the development code, it was okay. Putting out the current piles of smoking garbage in the "stable" tree, on the other hand, is not.
I agree, but let's not revise history too much. 2.4.x was a minefield until around 2.4.16 or so. At least they haven't completely ripped out the VM in 2.6 yet and replaced it with something that works differently. (or have they?)
now please tell me why the 12 shop PC's at a local foundry that I did some side work for had normal PC's at formam stations in the UNHEATED foundry floor that usually had at LEAST 1/8 inch of sand and metal shavings all over the inside work flawlessly for years that way?
You never turned them on?
They were special computers that didn't use electricity?
They were special metal shavings that didn't conduct electricity?
I also have stated that I feel that was the *one* mistake they made, offering a mechanism that allows the document to be effectively negated on a whim.
You obviously don't know anything about the ratification process, which prevents us from changing it on a whim.
But I'm sure they could have never imagined the change in people over time, and their rabid desire to destroy what they created. To them, what they created would stand forever, and everyone would respect their wishes and not try to tear it down at some point in the future
Right. They never would have conceived of anyone "tearing it down." It's not like they were revolutionaries.
They have been worked on, partially fixed, etc. etc. but with the development model as it is, you just cannot expect fixes to have a very long life-time.
Nobody does automated (or otherwise) regression testing on the Linux kernel?
No, i don't support anything beyond the original 10, the ones that were created by the founders.
Anything else dilutes the original document, and yes i do realize what I'm saying.
So on the one hand you believe the founding fathers' ideas were so good that the constitution shouldn't be altered. On the other hand, the founding fathers included a straightforward way of altering the constitution, and according to your values they must have had a reason for doing so.
Humm, and how do you react when you come in to the office after a long weekend and find the server is locked in a panic cycle, because some change you made months ago means it won't boot properly? No doubt you blame everybody; developers, documenters, compilers, colleagues, god etc.. But the real reason it failed is because you did not test properly.
You're kidding, right? It's called a "test environment." You test your changes there instead of testing on your production machines.
Panasonic could mitigate some of the damage they've done with their camera's stupid default features by not accepting connections referred to them by google. Their viewnetcam.com site seems to be hosting a lot of vulnerable cameras.
I have no reason to believe the person posting the text of the novel does not have legal permission to do so.
It's sort of a common-sense thing. The internet being what it is a reasonable person ought to assume that the copyright is being infringed, since in 99.99% of the cases that's what is happening when you stumble across a poorly-formatted plaintext of a currently copyrighted work. A legit copy of a popular work that is legally available for free distribution will probably have been lovingly prepared by a Project Gutenberg volunteer or in rare cases by the publisher, and will look a lot better than a simple OCR rip deal.
If you actually give a shit you can email the guy who owns this page: http://paulwilliams.com/pkds.html
Not only was he the literary executor of Dick's estate, he ran the pkds which was mentioned on the title page of the book, so he's obviously got some credibility. I'm sure he'll be happy to state the obvious for you.
Consider the outcry you hear every time when this group of "father rapers" turns out to be using a piece of FOSS software. "We should modify the license to specifically ban the military from using our app!"
Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm really sick of all the talk about "father rapers" in the open source community. It happens so often, it's pretty much all you read about. "Father rapers this," "father rapers that". It's almost as if there is nothing else people want to talk about.
This is a bit of an oversimplification -- because a speeding ticket is technically a criminal case, and many states have no right to an attorney in traffic court.
Well, I should point out that my explanation isn't an oversimplification - the constitution really does say that. Check the findlaw link, honest.:) The fact that traffic cases have their own little corner of the law is pretty weird, actually. I have a lot of theories about that but this probably isn't the place.
The rule is.....for any offense where a jail sentence is a possibility, the accused has the right to counsel.
If the point is justice, whether civil or criminal, then some basic legal assistance is necessary for all.
The right to free legal assistance in criminal cases began with an interpretation of the sixth amendment, which begins with the words "In all criminal prosecutions." It is maybe a stretch, but at least reasonable, to interpret the constitution to imply that the state ought to provide counsel to the accused in a criminal case. It just doesn't apply in civil cases.
More info here: http://criminal.findlaw.com/articles/1470.h tml
It is entirely unreasonable to expect a layperson to even minimally be able to fairly defend themselves.
Obviously people who can't afford to defend themselves properly in civil cases get shafted. I don't know what the solution to that is. A good judge obviously helps, as do good laws.
No, I say it as if I think that distributing the home addresses of delegates with the intent that those people should be intimidated into giving up their seats at the convention is both illegal and probably not that great for our political process.
I doubt very much indeed that it is illegal to post the information, if it was just addresses and phone numbers of political figures they were posting. What one does with the information after reading it is another matter.
(was anyone even charged? somehow I doubt it)
t was neither; it was chain link, which is completely different.
You're either being dishonest or you're just misinformed. Did you see any of the pictures of the NY free speech zones? There were plenty in the papers and on TV. I pulled this more or less at random, there are certainly better pics: http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64349 ,00.htm l
I'm sorry, but "You suck, I hate you" is not reality. It's just vitriol. And the more of it we keep out of our politics, the better for everybody on both sides of the aisle.
If you think it's the place of the federal government to decide what is "just vitriol" and to "keep vitriol out of politics", we're hardly even part of the same conversation.
So while it's true that we're lucky nobody got actually physically harmed, it's not correct to say that it was just hurt feelings.
None of which really addresses the point should the delegates identities be secret? We have really moved pretty far away from the traditional American political process when we answer "yes." It really is interesting to visualize what some of the founding fathers would have to say about political delegates cowering in fear of kiddies on the internet, though.
Who what? I'm sorry, I thought for a second there that we were having a totally unmediated discussion on a freely accessible Internet forum that can be read or commented on by anybody anywhere in the country and in most of the world. (Stupid China and Iran.)
There's this thing called "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" that's actually sort of important. It's mentioned in some interesting documents.
Friend,
I'm not your friend, palooka.
it's easier today to participate in the public debate than it's ever been in the history of the world.
The "where" of the public debate is pretty important, which is why public assembly is mentioned in the constitution. It's rather more important when you have leaders that brag about never reading the newspaper, I suppose.
I think your problem -- if you'll excuse me for getting personal--is that you think waving a "Bush = Hitler" sign is a contribution, and you're dismayed by the sheer number of people don't want to pay attention to you when you do it.
You don't know anything about my politics. No, it's not a "contribution," in my view. The point is that it's not for the federal government, or you, to decide what constitutes a "contribution."
Want to yell and scream, be profane or obscene, or commit acts of violence?
Interesting that you group those all together. The law treats them all quite differently, for good reason.
Surely we remember the little issue of GOP delegates' home addresses being disseminated via Indymedia Web sites?
You say that as if you think that the identity and location of our representatives in the democratic process ought to be top secret. You don't have to be a radical left-winger to disagree with that.
I actually remember more of a controversy surrounding the location of the delegates' hotels being disseminated during the GOP convention. I don't really have a problem with that - I think it's an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the "free speech zones" which were set up by the federal government, trying to put everyone who wanted their voices heard by the delegates behind barbed wire. (or was it razor wire? I forget) Anyhow, it's worth noting that based on the news reports the worst that happened to any of the delegates was some hurt feelings, surprise at how much they were disliked by a vocal few. (The fact that they were surprised says an awful lot about the need for protest, I think. How out of touch with reality should such delegates actually be?)
It's a case where we ought to actually consider for a few milliseconds the consequences of our (or the government's) actions. If you make it extremely difficult for people to get their voices heard, almost the only people who find a way to be heard are going to be the highly-motivated radicals. Free speech zones are ultimately self-destructive for an administration that wants to minimize the appearance of dissent, but unfortunately they do not understand human nature (or American History, I would argue) well enough to see the damage they are doing. Or maybe they do.
I think it's fair for Apple to be on the list with the 3 Ghz claim, though they should have shared the honor with IBM. After all, Apple was just going off whatever they were told by IBM's R&D folks.
What makes you believe that? It's Steve Jobs who has the "reality distortion field" reputation, not IBM microelectronics.
If you guys won't RTFA fine, but at least read the summary. This scheme includes modifications of the lines to eliminate the interference problems.
Now debate the costs of replacing the lines, debate the speed, debate whether it's ethical to send nude shots of your gf over the same lines the power Grandma's toaster. But for the love of god quite repeating the same damn statement about RFI again and again!
That's the stupidest thing on earth. You really think a Yahoo news article presents a meaningful technical analysis? You're getting bent out of shape because people won't heed Yahoo News?
Ha. I stretched the warranty process with those stupid things about as far as I could, replaced several, and finally they sent me a newer model. It was DOA. I sold the next one on ebay...
(Don't argue with me about it as I have FOUR 7K250 drives, a DOZEN 120GXP drives and a DOZEN 180GXP drives in use 24x7 across a variety of desktop systems.)
I hope you hold your pinkie to your mouth and cackle evily when you say stuff like that.
Slashdot Mirror
They were neither a small group (it takes overwhelming popular support to get an amendment passed) or acting on a whim (their movement had been around a really long time). The "fanatics" part is awfully subjective.
First, it would be awfully easy for them to conceive of someone destroying the government they just created. They were revolutionaries. Pull your head out of your ass and understand the implications of that.
Second, they made the constitution flexible through the amendment process because they knew the design of the government had to bend, rather than break. Come on kid, this is basic stuff. They wrote about it all the time. The first thing they did was tweak the design, in the form of the bill of rights.
I agree, but let's not revise history too much. 2.4.x was a minefield until around 2.4.16 or so. At least they haven't completely ripped out the VM in 2.6 yet and replaced it with something that works differently. (or have they?)
I sure don't.
You never turned them on?
They were special computers that didn't use electricity?
They were special metal shavings that didn't conduct electricity?
You're talking out of your ass?
You obviously don't know anything about the ratification process, which prevents us from changing it on a whim.
Right. They never would have conceived of anyone "tearing it down." It's not like they were revolutionaries.
Nobody does automated (or otherwise) regression testing on the Linux kernel?
So on the one hand you believe the founding fathers' ideas were so good that the constitution shouldn't be altered. On the other hand, the founding fathers included a straightforward way of altering the constitution, and according to your values they must have had a reason for doing so.
"Why did you turn these amazing machines into lawn ornaments?" might have been a good question to ask. I've never understood the politics of that.
You're kidding, right? It's called a "test environment." You test your changes there instead of testing on your production machines.
There should be some kind of moderation setting called "so redundant the poster does not deserve to live."
Panasonic could mitigate some of the damage they've done with their camera's stupid default features by not accepting connections referred to them by google. Their viewnetcam.com site seems to be hosting a lot of vulnerable cameras.
It's sort of a common-sense thing. The internet being what it is a reasonable person ought to assume that the copyright is being infringed, since in 99.99% of the cases that's what is happening when you stumble across a poorly-formatted plaintext of a currently copyrighted work. A legit copy of a popular work that is legally available for free distribution will probably have been lovingly prepared by a Project Gutenberg volunteer or in rare cases by the publisher, and will look a lot better than a simple OCR rip deal.
If you actually give a shit you can email the guy who owns this page:
http://paulwilliams.com/pkds.html
Not only was he the literary executor of Dick's estate, he ran the pkds which was mentioned on the title page of the book, so he's obviously got some credibility. I'm sure he'll be happy to state the obvious for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BabbageDifferen ceEngine.jpg
If you thought large numbers of branches were expensive on your system...
This document:G eometry.pdf
http://brlcad.org/VolumeIV-Converting_
indicates that it can export to STL and IGES.
Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm really sick of all the talk about "father rapers" in the open source community. It happens so often, it's pretty much all you read about. "Father rapers this," "father rapers that". It's almost as if there is nothing else people want to talk about.
Well, I should point out that my explanation isn't an oversimplification - the constitution really does say that. Check the findlaw link, honest.
What makes you say that?
Anyone can place material on wikipedia, so...
The right to free legal assistance in criminal cases began with an interpretation of the sixth amendment, which begins with the words "In all criminal prosecutions." It is maybe a stretch, but at least reasonable, to interpret the constitution to imply that the state ought to provide counsel to the accused in a criminal case. It just doesn't apply in civil cases.
More info here:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/articles/1470.
Obviously people who can't afford to defend themselves properly in civil cases get shafted. I don't know what the solution to that is. A good judge obviously helps, as do good laws.
Huh? I think the difference is just that the state won't pay for your attorney in a civil case. There is some logic to that.
I doubt very much indeed that it is illegal to post the information, if it was just addresses and phone numbers of political figures they were posting. What one does with the information after reading it is another matter.
(was anyone even charged? somehow I doubt it)
You're either being dishonest or you're just misinformed. Did you see any of the pictures of the NY free speech zones? There were plenty in the papers and on TV. I pulled this more or less at random, there are certainly better pics:
http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,6434
If you think it's the place of the federal government to decide what is "just vitriol" and to "keep vitriol out of politics", we're hardly even part of the same conversation.
None of which really addresses the point should the delegates identities be secret? We have really moved pretty far away from the traditional American political process when we answer "yes." It really is interesting to visualize what some of the founding fathers would have to say about political delegates cowering in fear of kiddies on the internet, though.
There's this thing called "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" that's actually sort of important. It's mentioned in some interesting documents.
I'm not your friend, palooka.
The "where" of the public debate is pretty important, which is why public assembly is mentioned in the constitution. It's rather more important when you have leaders that brag about never reading the newspaper, I suppose.
You don't know anything about my politics. No, it's not a "contribution," in my view. The point is that it's not for the federal government, or you, to decide what constitutes a "contribution."
Interesting that you group those all together. The law treats them all quite differently, for good reason.
You say that as if you think that the identity and location of our representatives in the democratic process ought to be top secret. You don't have to be a radical left-winger to disagree with that.
I actually remember more of a controversy surrounding the location of the delegates' hotels being disseminated during the GOP convention. I don't really have a problem with that - I think it's an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the "free speech zones" which were set up by the federal government, trying to put everyone who wanted their voices heard by the delegates behind barbed wire. (or was it razor wire? I forget) Anyhow, it's worth noting that based on the news reports the worst that happened to any of the delegates was some hurt feelings, surprise at how much they were disliked by a vocal few. (The fact that they were surprised says an awful lot about the need for protest, I think. How out of touch with reality should such delegates actually be?)
It's a case where we ought to actually consider for a few milliseconds the consequences of our (or the government's) actions. If you make it extremely difficult for people to get their voices heard, almost the only people who find a way to be heard are going to be the highly-motivated radicals. Free speech zones are ultimately self-destructive for an administration that wants to minimize the appearance of dissent, but unfortunately they do not understand human nature (or American History, I would argue) well enough to see the damage they are doing. Or maybe they do.
What makes you believe that? It's Steve Jobs who has the "reality distortion field" reputation, not IBM microelectronics.
I'm sure they'd like to blame IBM, of course.
That's the stupidest thing on earth. You really think a Yahoo news article presents a meaningful technical analysis? You're getting bent out of shape because people won't heed Yahoo News?
Mmmmmkay.
Only if everyone else stops upgrading their storage before he does...
Ha. I stretched the warranty process with those stupid things about as far as I could, replaced several, and finally they sent me a newer model. It was DOA. I sold the next one on ebay...
I hope you hold your pinkie to your mouth and cackle evily when you say stuff like that.