The Libertarians can't help but mod me down even when I don't directly reference them.
Well, it's bloody we'll true. Medicine in ye olden days where you could only judge a doctor's fitness by how many patients lived or died (in other words pure market forces) wasn't exactly a stellar success, and it's only when certification boards and similar bodies, with the force of legislation behind them, did you at least gain some trust as to basic credentials and competency, and some way to remove doctors who failed to maintain that competency.
A pure free market in health care would be a nightmare, where the worst aspects of the current system would be magnified in horrific fashion.
They're called non coding sequences and while many have no perceivable function, some do have regulatory functions. Not to mention that you can get a lot of neutral drift out of those regions.
Yes I know Android is open source but one of Oracle's claims was that Google stole Oracle's IP when it developed Dalvik as a largely library and spec compatible variant of Java. If Oracle had succeeded Google would have been forced to pay damages and seek out a licensing agreement.
It was the most ludicrous part of the whole case. There is case law firmly stating that APIs, libraries, language and protocol specifications themselves cannot be copyrighted, as they are nothing more than the equivalent of a phone book. I can't believe anyone seriously thought that Oracle had a chance with this. On the whole, the patent part of the case was stronger, and that was pretty weak. I have to believe Ellison's lawyers were telling him not to proceed, but I suppose if faced with the last remaining jewel from the Sun crown that meant a damned thing, maybe I'd take my chances, no matter how slim, on a court case.
But a court slapdown that means Oracle loses any control of the Java language it asserted it had is a pretty major loss. Oracle's purchase of Sun is proving to be a pretty crappy investment all in all.
Certainly while under probation liberties of felons can be restricted. Freedom of speech can be curtailed, for instance in restricting or banning communications with victims. Freedom of movement can be curtailed. Once you are convicted of a serious offence, a court can restrict your constitutional rights in a number of ways.
Beyond that, the view of the Supreme Court, particular in Pintz v. United States is a great deal more nuanced than the simplistic reading of the 2nd Amendment you seem to invoke. If you applied similar simplistic interpretations to, say, the 1st Amendment, libel and slander laws and rulings could not be supported.
No liberty is absolute. The Founding Fathers understood this, over two centuries of jurisprudence surrounding the Bill of Rights underlines this, so why do people still insist upon these sorts of absolutist interpretations? It is almost certain that the Founding Fathers never intended the 2nd Amendment to mean felons and madmen could not be restricted in their access to firearms. It was meant as a means of protecting the lawful rights of the people to bear arms for their protection and livelihood, and ultimately SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean any lawful use of a firearm. But if you start suffering delusional behavior and show signs of severe mental breakdown, then I think it is well within the right of the government to seek to restrict your ability to purchase firearms, and in the above referenced case this specific scenario is dealt with.
That is a myth. The Chinese were making weapons that used gunpowder centuries before the Europeans figured it out. In fact, at one point in the 17th century Japan was the largest manufacturer of firearms in the world, but it was curtailed by the Shogunate for fear it would destabilize the country? That is until Commodore Perry shot some cannons in Tokyo Bay.
A ludicrously expansive view of the 2nd Amendment. No one seems to disagree with limiting convicted felons rights to bear arms, but wow , an amendment is needed to stop people with a history of mental illness?
I still favor Debian over Ubuntu on the server. I had sOme odd problems with Apache on Ubuntu a few years ago that clearly camfrom some of the install options. Moving to Debian seemed to sort it out.
I built some custo routers based on Via's Cyrix CPUs (Pentium 4 equivalents) earlier this year and greatly appreciated x86 Debian. There are still a lot of 32 bit processors out there, even in newer equipment.
And how exactly do you solve the problem of stale AD domain controllers? Restoring a DC image, particularly in a multi-DC environment means you have to then immediately restore all the AD objects from... You guessed it... backup.
The thing with *nix, or at least any version I've worked with, the functionality is already there. Configurations are almost always in human-readable text files, and I have a toolset that has been around in one form or another for decades to work with those files. I can easily make backups of daemon configurations, and indeed have been able to restore a server with the contents of/etc and the data files.
I find backing up the registry in a fashion that allows me to easily restore configurations a real pain. NTBackup and it's descendants are hardly backup wonders. Configuration via text file is infinitely easier to deal with than binary hives.
I don't even bother restoring failed domain controllers any more. I have other DCs replicating AD data so I just build a new server, promote it to a DC and let replication do the heavy lifting. Hrlluva lot easier than what passes for bare metal recovery in the Windows world.
For server functionality pure bullshit. I have a decade's experience running Windows and *nix servers, often in the same networks and while Windows has AD and GPOs to its benefit, in other respects it is horribly backwards and painful to use. Just backing up the system config in Windows is appallingly difficult compared to *nix.
Thermodynamics explains certain facets of the universe. It may or may not have a damned thing to do with the initial state of the universe (if that is even a meaningful statement).
So I'm assumInv the book doesn't actually broach the subject as to whether the question is even meaningful? I might be interested in the book, but if it is just a rehash of world views I'm already familiar with, then I have a good many other books I would prefer to read first.
Yes, Willis can certainly do that, and I'm sure being a wealthy man he employs people directly or indirectly with the knowledge to do this. The problem being that breaking iTunes DRM is actually against the law. So while this solves the one issue of actually providing a copy of the library to his heirs, it does not solve the other problem that he has paid money and has not received certain enduring powers over it. Now we can dismiss that right now, but let us imagine in fifty or a hundred years, when the CD is as archaic in that time as the wind-up phonograph is to our's.
Essentially we are paving the way boldly into the future in which the books and music we pay money for will only be available under limited licenses where ultimate ownership stays (probably in perpetuity, considering the obscene copyright terms pretty much the entire world is being forced to accept) with the licensor. There will be no more libraries filled with a person's lifetime of reading to bequeath to his heirs or donate to some august institution. When you die, any rights you enjoyed expire and your heirs are just simply screwed. To grant them anything you will have to make what amount to illicit copies because you had to bust their encryption to do it, and a large enough collection will most certainly get the attention of the copyright authorities, who will have long ago gained equal standing to any other law enforcement agency.
We have allowed lawyers to basically steal away the fundamentals of human control. They have became the purveyors of an unnatural form of cultural theft. What we've read, what we've heard, it will no longer be a societal creation, it will rest forever with a licensor, and likely they will all be as jealous and litigious as the likes of RIAA today. There won't be any cultural ownership, we will become licensees. Imagine, a whole civilization's cultural productions held hostage to the whims of lawyers, suits and politicians, who will happily create ever longer extensions to their absolute control. We have allowed culture-less sociopaths to take control of our civilization's artistic productivity in the name of "intellectual property rights".
Because a contract should supersede very ancient expectations that a library or catalog can be bequeathed to one's heirs. This is indeed a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. Yes, Apple certainly is on firm legal ground, but if you consider its actions, and the actions of all the other 99.99% of companies, well, I'd say we're dealing a with a pack of society-destroying sociopaths, all protected by concepts meant to protect an individual's liberty, and not apply liberty based on the size of the bank account.
Slashdot Mirror
The Libertarians can't help but mod me down even when I don't directly reference them.
Well, it's bloody we'll true. Medicine in ye olden days where you could only judge a doctor's fitness by how many patients lived or died (in other words pure market forces) wasn't exactly a stellar success, and it's only when certification boards and similar bodies, with the force of legislation behind them, did you at least gain some trust as to basic credentials and competency, and some way to remove doctors who failed to maintain that competency.
A pure free market in health care would be a nightmare, where the worst aspects of the current system would be magnified in horrific fashion.
Because when medicine was left to individual practitioners, things were sooooo much better.
They're called non coding sequences and while many have no perceivable function, some do have regulatory functions. Not to mention that you can get a lot of neutral drift out of those regions.
He has to regret the Sun acquisition.
Yes I know Android is open source but one of Oracle's claims was that Google stole Oracle's IP when it developed Dalvik as a largely library and spec compatible variant of Java. If Oracle had succeeded Google would have been forced to pay damages and seek out a licensing agreement.
If oracle could have got its claws into Android to extort some licensing fees, it would have done a helluva lot for the bottom line.
It was the most ludicrous part of the whole case. There is case law firmly stating that APIs, libraries, language and protocol specifications themselves cannot be copyrighted, as they are nothing more than the equivalent of a phone book. I can't believe anyone seriously thought that Oracle had a chance with this. On the whole, the patent part of the case was stronger, and that was pretty weak. I have to believe Ellison's lawyers were telling him not to proceed, but I suppose if faced with the last remaining jewel from the Sun crown that meant a damned thing, maybe I'd take my chances, no matter how slim, on a court case.
But a court slapdown that means Oracle loses any control of the Java language it asserted it had is a pretty major loss. Oracle's purchase of Sun is proving to be a pretty crappy investment all in all.
Certainly while under probation liberties of felons can be restricted. Freedom of speech can be curtailed, for instance in restricting or banning communications with victims. Freedom of movement can be curtailed. Once you are convicted of a serious offence, a court can restrict your constitutional rights in a number of ways.
Beyond that, the view of the Supreme Court, particular in Pintz v. United States is a great deal more nuanced than the simplistic reading of the 2nd Amendment you seem to invoke. If you applied similar simplistic interpretations to, say, the 1st Amendment, libel and slander laws and rulings could not be supported.
No liberty is absolute. The Founding Fathers understood this, over two centuries of jurisprudence surrounding the Bill of Rights underlines this, so why do people still insist upon these sorts of absolutist interpretations? It is almost certain that the Founding Fathers never intended the 2nd Amendment to mean felons and madmen could not be restricted in their access to firearms. It was meant as a means of protecting the lawful rights of the people to bear arms for their protection and livelihood, and ultimately SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean any lawful use of a firearm. But if you start suffering delusional behavior and show signs of severe mental breakdown, then I think it is well within the right of the government to seek to restrict your ability to purchase firearms, and in the above referenced case this specific scenario is dealt with.
That is a myth. The Chinese were making weapons that used gunpowder centuries before the Europeans figured it out. In fact, at one point in the 17th century Japan was the largest manufacturer of firearms in the world, but it was curtailed by the Shogunate for fear it would destabilize the country? That is until Commodore Perry shot some cannons in Tokyo Bay.
A ludicrously expansive view of the 2nd Amendment. No one seems to disagree with limiting convicted felons rights to bear arms, but wow , an amendment is needed to stop people with a history of mental illness?
I still favor Debian over Ubuntu on the server. I had sOme odd problems with Apache on Ubuntu a few years ago that clearly camfrom some of the install options. Moving to Debian seemed to sort it out.
I built some custo routers based on Via's Cyrix CPUs (Pentium 4 equivalents) earlier this year and greatly appreciated x86 Debian. There are still a lot of 32 bit processors out there, even in newer equipment.
And how exactly do you solve the problem of stale AD domain controllers? Restoring a DC image, particularly in a multi-DC environment means you have to then immediately restore all the AD objects from... You guessed it... backup.
The thing with *nix, or at least any version I've worked with, the functionality is already there. Configurations are almost always in human-readable text files, and I have a toolset that has been around in one form or another for decades to work with those files. I can easily make backups of daemon configurations, and indeed have been able to restore a server with the contents of /etc and the data files.
I find backing up the registry in a fashion that allows me to easily restore configurations a real pain. NTBackup and it's descendants are hardly backup wonders. Configuration via text file is infinitely easier to deal with than binary hives.
I don't even bother restoring failed domain controllers any more. I have other DCs replicating AD data so I just build a new server, promote it to a DC and let replication do the heavy lifting. Hrlluva lot easier than what passes for bare metal recovery in the Windows world.
For server functionality pure bullshit. I have a decade's experience running Windows and *nix servers, often in the same networks and while Windows has AD and GPOs to its benefit, in other respects it is horribly backwards and painful to use. Just backing up the system config in Windows is appallingly difficult compared to *nix.
Not every employer is a selfish miserable cunt.
You do realize he has a neurochemical disorder, right? That's like telling a guy with no legs that he just needs an attitude adjustment.
You're behavior suggests you are a sociopath, so you stay away from MY workplace.
Thermodynamics explains certain facets of the universe. It may or may not have a damned thing to do with the initial state of the universe (if that is even a meaningful statement).
So I'm assumInv the book doesn't actually broach the subject as to whether the question is even meaningful? I might be interested in the book, but if it is just a rehash of world views I'm already familiar with, then I have a good many other books I would prefer to read first.
Yes, Willis can certainly do that, and I'm sure being a wealthy man he employs people directly or indirectly with the knowledge to do this. The problem being that breaking iTunes DRM is actually against the law. So while this solves the one issue of actually providing a copy of the library to his heirs, it does not solve the other problem that he has paid money and has not received certain enduring powers over it. Now we can dismiss that right now, but let us imagine in fifty or a hundred years, when the CD is as archaic in that time as the wind-up phonograph is to our's.
Essentially we are paving the way boldly into the future in which the books and music we pay money for will only be available under limited licenses where ultimate ownership stays (probably in perpetuity, considering the obscene copyright terms pretty much the entire world is being forced to accept) with the licensor. There will be no more libraries filled with a person's lifetime of reading to bequeath to his heirs or donate to some august institution. When you die, any rights you enjoyed expire and your heirs are just simply screwed. To grant them anything you will have to make what amount to illicit copies because you had to bust their encryption to do it, and a large enough collection will most certainly get the attention of the copyright authorities, who will have long ago gained equal standing to any other law enforcement agency.
We have allowed lawyers to basically steal away the fundamentals of human control. They have became the purveyors of an unnatural form of cultural theft. What we've read, what we've heard, it will no longer be a societal creation, it will rest forever with a licensor, and likely they will all be as jealous and litigious as the likes of RIAA today. There won't be any cultural ownership, we will become licensees. Imagine, a whole civilization's cultural productions held hostage to the whims of lawyers, suits and politicians, who will happily create ever longer extensions to their absolute control. We have allowed culture-less sociopaths to take control of our civilization's artistic productivity in the name of "intellectual property rights".
I think we need a prequel, where the question itself is studied, and reasons provided for why it is a sensible question to even ask.
Because a contract should supersede very ancient expectations that a library or catalog can be bequeathed to one's heirs. This is indeed a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. Yes, Apple certainly is on firm legal ground, but if you consider its actions, and the actions of all the other 99.99% of companies, well, I'd say we're dealing a with a pack of society-destroying sociopaths, all protected by concepts meant to protect an individual's liberty, and not apply liberty based on the size of the bank account.