You don't have to live in the district in order to run for Congress in that district, you only have to live in the state.
The folks running the Free Government Party might require a candidate to live in the district, but it isn't a restriction required by the United States or Massachusetts.
And then we get to the term length of copyright. Windows 1.0 is public domain in 2080. Do you think anyone will even have such a binary laying around and would it be useful for 2080 technology?
Having just the binary is not useful for using Windows 1.0 as a base for further works. I don't need the script of a public domain movie nor do I need the sheet music of a public domain song to create a work based on those works. I do need the source code to a piece of software in order to do make anything other than trivial modifications.
I would like all software to be FOSS, but I don't think it should be law.
I do think that source must be published and on file in the Library of Congress in order to receive copyright protection, though. Source must be published so that we can properly study and be enriched by the work. Software is an odd case that the founders could have never foreseen. Really what use is there of the Windows 1.0 binaries when the source is gone? It'd be like trying to read a book without the words, yet the book still being useful. Published source is fundamental to the progress of science and useful arts.
I don't accept is copyright protection on top of patent protection on top of trade secret protection with an EULA thrown in to cover all the bases.
If any proprietary vendor thinks publishing the source is a bad deal, they can always use contract law to keep their customers from copying purchased software. And I would have no problem with that so long as it was a real contract, not a click-thru "contract".
In the end, copyright is supposed to benefit society, not authors of creative works.
No one calls it "the Democrat Party" unless they're trying to make an ad hominem attack. Just so you know for future reference.
First, Nixon was objectively to the left of Obama. When the oil embargo occurred, Nixon didn't let the free market take over, he instituted a rationing system and price controls. I'm going to repeat that because it bears repeating.
A Republican signed a bill into law (and subsequently enforced it) that created a rationing system and price controls on oil. I'm not even sure the most liberal Democrats would support such a bill today, let alone any Republicans.
And if the far left was really in control today, we'd have free college education, Medicare for all, marginal tax rates of around 70% in the highest tax bracket, and the minimum wage would be somewhere around $9/hr.
Generally speaking, I don't think Congress even pays attention to the constitution. They just pass whatever they feel like and hope the judges give them a pass.
The bad thing here is that many judges have the same mindset: that law X may not be authorized but is a really good idea, so it should be found constitutional anyway.
You don't even need to resort to ad hominems. Why would we want to substitute natural gas for gasoline? I don't know if anyone has checked, but natural gas ain't exactly cheap either.
Adding in the increased demand due to its use as an automobile fuel, I'm willing to be it'd be more expensive than gasoline. Not to mention that we're running out of natural gas, too.
Renewables along with heavy investment in mass transit is the only long term solution, save the fusion generator that's always a decade away.
* Eliminate gerrymandering * Equal ballot access laws for all candidates * Implement IRV, approval voting, the Condorcet method, or any sort of preferential voting instead of our current first-past-the-post system.
If you want to go the extra mile simply eliminate congressional districts and use STV at the state level.
Or, he could have figured out by a simple whip count that this was going to pass by more than one vote. At that point he could have at least saved face with the liberal crowd by voting against it.
The fact is Obama knows after the Nader debacle in the 2000 election, he's got his left flank covered. He voted for this bill in order to stop Republican attacks on his record in the general election. What he and most other Democrats don't understand is that Republicans would savage the likes of Jesus of Nazareth for being soft on terrorism. No vote will change their electoral strategy.
I think I'm more scared by you thinking Obama is the "Press' Poster Boy".
In fact, both candidates are getting a free pass on a lot. Remember, the press will always push a narrative that they believe will attract the most viewers.
After I posted, I thought a bit more about the question and decided to throw in a different analogy.
A energy-matter conversion device (a replicator in Star Trek terms) would be incredibly anti-business, but they'd be a great invention. If one assumes a nearly infinite supply of energy, the price of quite a few goods would be zero.
When proprietary software vendors speak of FOSS being anti-business what they are really doing is asserting the broken window fallacy. That is to say proprietary software costs money, which is a business transaction while FOSS (usually) costs nothing which isn't a business transaction.
Of course it is. It's not about the abolishment of private property, but about collective work toward a common goal. You know, the good part of communism.
It is not anti-business.
That's true, except when your business relies on selling copies of software. Free/open source software will eliminate that business model given enough time, just as the automobile eliminated the horse and buggy.
The fact that many posters here automatically assume that those who own the infrastructure must also provide the services on that infrastructure is a bad sign.
We wouldn't tolerate GM owning and operating large amounts of roads and only allowing GM cars on the roads. We shouldn't tolerate the same in telecommunications networks.
The oddest thing about the public ownership, private competition plan is that it creates the conditions for the most competition. ISPs could compete on service rather than just being the first guy on the block to offer service. Many times where there isn't a free market, government intervention is required to create one.
Letting a local government run your Internet is a stupid-bad idea.
I agree.
What isn't a stupid idea is letting a local government build networking infrastructure and then allowing access to anyone who wishes to provide services over the infrastructure.
So something that has an additional step BEFORE BECOMING ASSEMBLY is faster than something THAT STARTS OUT AS ASSEMBLY...
Not necessarily, due to the dynamic recompilation techniques available in the JVM. Perhaps you should read it as well.
Now in terms of raw speed where dynamic recompilation is unnecessary or unavailable, anything compiled to assembly is the way to go for the reasons you mentioned.
As I'm sure you know, the language (be it assembly, Java, C, etc.) doesn't matter. What matters is how well the compiler optimizes, since everything gets turned into assembly anyway.
By your comment and the context you are claiming that writing a program in hand-coded assembly is faster than writing the same program in Java and that this is true for all programs. That, sir, is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. Hardly ever does even an expert assembly programmer do better than an optimizing compiler, but it does happen occasionally.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to live in the district in order to run for Congress in that district, you only have to live in the state.
The folks running the Free Government Party might require a candidate to live in the district, but it isn't a restriction required by the United States or Massachusetts.
Granted.
Although, I don't think click-wrap licenses should be contracts since they are inherently one-sided and no good-faith negotiation can occur.
And then we get to the term length of copyright. Windows 1.0 is public domain in 2080. Do you think anyone will even have such a binary laying around and would it be useful for 2080 technology?
Having just the binary is not useful for using Windows 1.0 as a base for further works. I don't need the script of a public domain movie nor do I need the sheet music of a public domain song to create a work based on those works. I do need the source code to a piece of software in order to do make anything other than trivial modifications.
I would like all software to be FOSS, but I don't think it should be law.
I do think that source must be published and on file in the Library of Congress in order to receive copyright protection, though. Source must be published so that we can properly study and be enriched by the work. Software is an odd case that the founders could have never foreseen. Really what use is there of the Windows 1.0 binaries when the source is gone? It'd be like trying to read a book without the words, yet the book still being useful. Published source is fundamental to the progress of science and useful arts.
I don't accept is copyright protection on top of patent protection on top of trade secret protection with an EULA thrown in to cover all the bases.
If any proprietary vendor thinks publishing the source is a bad deal, they can always use contract law to keep their customers from copying purchased software. And I would have no problem with that so long as it was a real contract, not a click-thru "contract".
In the end, copyright is supposed to benefit society, not authors of creative works.
No one calls it "the Democrat Party" unless they're trying to make an ad hominem attack. Just so you know for future reference.
First, Nixon was objectively to the left of Obama. When the oil embargo occurred, Nixon didn't let the free market take over, he instituted a rationing system and price controls. I'm going to repeat that because it bears repeating.
A Republican signed a bill into law (and subsequently enforced it) that created a rationing system and price controls on oil. I'm not even sure the most liberal Democrats would support such a bill today, let alone any Republicans.
And if the far left was really in control today, we'd have free college education, Medicare for all, marginal tax rates of around 70% in the highest tax bracket, and the minimum wage would be somewhere around $9/hr.
Generally speaking, I don't think Congress even pays attention to the constitution. They just pass whatever they feel like and hope the judges give them a pass.
The bad thing here is that many judges have the same mindset: that law X may not be authorized but is a really good idea, so it should be found constitutional anyway.
Pray tell, exactly what tools will law enforcement have once this bill is signed by President Bush that they didn't have previously?
Are these tools necessary to do the job? And more importantly, can these tools be used in a constitutional manner?
Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?
You don't even need to resort to ad hominems. Why would we want to substitute natural gas for gasoline? I don't know if anyone has checked, but natural gas ain't exactly cheap either.
Adding in the increased demand due to its use as an automobile fuel, I'm willing to be it'd be more expensive than gasoline. Not to mention that we're running out of natural gas, too.
Renewables along with heavy investment in mass transit is the only long term solution, save the fusion generator that's always a decade away.
FWIW, Reid voted against the bill.
Actually the easy way to deal with this is:
* Eliminate gerrymandering
* Equal ballot access laws for all candidates
* Implement IRV, approval voting, the Condorcet method, or any sort of preferential voting instead of our current first-past-the-post system.
If you want to go the extra mile simply eliminate congressional districts and use STV at the state level.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Some states will county any write-in votes, but they are few. Usually a state will count a write-in for an undeclared candidate as an undervote.
Or, he could have figured out by a simple whip count that this was going to pass by more than one vote. At that point he could have at least saved face with the liberal crowd by voting against it.
The fact is Obama knows after the Nader debacle in the 2000 election, he's got his left flank covered. He voted for this bill in order to stop Republican attacks on his record in the general election. What he and most other Democrats don't understand is that Republicans would savage the likes of Jesus of Nazareth for being soft on terrorism. No vote will change their electoral strategy.
Then why don't we make it not a two-party system?
Greenwald makes the point that this bill couldn't get passed when Republicans held the House and Senate.
Apparently Bush needed a Democrat-controlled Congress to get his get-out-of-jail free card.
I think I'm more scared by you thinking Obama is the "Press' Poster Boy".
In fact, both candidates are getting a free pass on a lot. Remember, the press will always push a narrative that they believe will attract the most viewers.
After I posted, I thought a bit more about the question and decided to throw in a different analogy.
A energy-matter conversion device (a replicator in Star Trek terms) would be incredibly anti-business, but they'd be a great invention. If one assumes a nearly infinite supply of energy, the price of quite a few goods would be zero.
When proprietary software vendors speak of FOSS being anti-business what they are really doing is asserting the broken window fallacy. That is to say proprietary software costs money, which is a business transaction while FOSS (usually) costs nothing which isn't a business transaction.
Of course it is. It's not about the abolishment of private property, but about collective work toward a common goal. You know, the good part of communism.
That's true, except when your business relies on selling copies of software. Free/open source software will eliminate that business model given enough time, just as the automobile eliminated the horse and buggy.
The fact that many posters here automatically assume that those who own the infrastructure must also provide the services on that infrastructure is a bad sign.
We wouldn't tolerate GM owning and operating large amounts of roads and only allowing GM cars on the roads. We shouldn't tolerate the same in telecommunications networks.
The oddest thing about the public ownership, private competition plan is that it creates the conditions for the most competition. ISPs could compete on service rather than just being the first guy on the block to offer service. Many times where there isn't a free market, government intervention is required to create one.
The AC is speaking of infrastructure, not service. The government can build the network and then allow ISPs to provide service.
Do you also shun public roads and railways because private roads cannot compete?
Letting a local government run your Internet is a stupid-bad idea.
I agree.
What isn't a stupid idea is letting a local government build networking infrastructure and then allowing access to anyone who wishes to provide services over the infrastructure.
Indeed.
Those guys are very good at what they do. Certainly the exception to the rule, though.
Not necessarily, due to the dynamic recompilation techniques available in the JVM. Perhaps you should read it as well.
Now in terms of raw speed where dynamic recompilation is unnecessary or unavailable, anything compiled to assembly is the way to go for the reasons you mentioned.
Well trolled, sir.
As I'm sure you know, the language (be it assembly, Java, C, etc.) doesn't matter. What matters is how well the compiler optimizes, since everything gets turned into assembly anyway.
By your comment and the context you are claiming that writing a program in hand-coded assembly is faster than writing the same program in Java and that this is true for all programs. That, sir, is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. Hardly ever does even an expert assembly programmer do better than an optimizing compiler, but it does happen occasionally.
Please read the Wikipedia article on dynamic recompilation for more information.