I know one thing for sure. The public use of the homeowners on the land is no different than the public use of the land in an office building. In fact, office buildings are largely unoccupied outside of regular business hours, while homes are occupied during off hours, AND business hours when the tenants of the home are retired, work at home, or stay at home. The structures these homes are being bulldozed for are privately owned, just like the homes. In short, there is no public use involved AT ALL, defined or not.
Better yet, be a true patriot and burn the flag in light of this clearly activist decision.
Too late... the Supreme Court has already burned it with this ruling. Or bulldozed it, more like.
I just saw on the news that New London's idea of "fair market value" for one of the homes is $120,000. Comparable properties in the area (but not condemned for development) are going for over 3 times that amount.
I hope all homeowners out there can sleep well tonight, because they may be sleeping in the street tomorrow.
And please note that all of the rabid right wing judges were in the dissent. It was the left wing of the court that just granted this mind blowing extension of government/corporate power.
One of the pillars of Marxism/Communism is the destruction of private property rights.
Public good? We don't know that this (New London's) or any other private development project resulting from siezed property will result in a public good. The phrase "public good" implies the current state as "bad for the public." What harm were the New London homeowners causing by maintaining their homes and paying their taxes? Even the court acknowledged the only reason the homes were condemned were because the developers wanted the property:
There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.
The homes weren't unsafe, unsightly, or harmful to the public in any way. Their owners just weren't greasing the local government's pockets with enough protection money to keep them from being legally stolen by developers.
I salute this decision. It's one more step towards reducing sprawl!
Good grief, man, what are you thinking? This decision opens the floodgates of sprawl. Why should a developer pay prime market value in the midst of a congested area when they can just have the city council condemn some less expensive property within the newly annexed city limits and force existing homes, businesses, schools, churches, etc. off (what before today's ruling was) their property for less money than what downtown property would go for.
Office buildings and hotels are just what are being disputed in this case, making the more far reaching ramifications of this decision less obvious to some. Manufacturers and *modern* housing developers will jump at the above mentioned method for land procurement.
How does this reduce sprawl? Developers/corporations just get the condemnation passed with the zoning; then they set the price without any overhead for litigation costs. If anything, this ruling makes sprawl cheaper, and therefore more likely.
This decision is worse than the Dred Scott decision. Notice that even in this case, however, that the Court's position was that Congress did not have the authority to deprive citizens of their property (Scott being deemed "property".) Now, the Supreme Court has decided that we have no private property, because the state can sieze it and sell it to another private owner for a profit (more taxes). In addition, today's ruling strips the rights of homeowners and places them in the same effective position that Scott was placed in 150 years ago -- that of a dehumanized legal construct with no rights in the courts.
I must grudgingly acknowledge that I underestimated the current makeup of the SCOTUS. They have managed to make a ruling worse than what are arguably the most unjust rulings (it took more than one ruling for Dred Scott) in the entire history of this country. They have wiped out private property and reduced homeowners to rightless slaves, powerless to challenge the whims of the state and deep-pocketed developers.
Windows XP will be going the end-of-life way of Windows 2000 in the near future. Micros**t is just beta testing another fork-the-user method they're going to stick in Wronghorn before they stick it in users... again.
I don't know about the person, but a culture that perpetuates female mutilation is indecent. Anyone coming from a disgusting culture such as that should leave that culture and its horrible indecent practices behind.
And anyone who replies with a "what about male circumcision?" line can have their dick cut off and leave the bone at home in a jar (women excepted, of course).
You've got it wrong. Open source most definitely is a competitor; it competes for my desktop, and does so very well. Just because it is unburdened by outrageous licensing terms and costs does not mean it has no value.
If Microsoft is going to reside on the internet, they've got a responsibility to make their systems compatible with other systems using the same network. Otherwise, as a direct result of their monopoly, they would become defacto owners of all networks, controlling access to the data on all Windows machines connected to the network, regardless of the data owners wishes. Imposing fees and/or stifling conditions on alternative systems to access data that the data owner may wish to share freely only benefits Microsoft. It's known as "double-dipping." If the aforementioned data owner is using a Windows machine to serve his data, that owner has already paid a fee to Microsoft, and Microsoft should not be entitled to charge or otherwise burden third parties.
Microsoft is laughing at the court's ignorance and gullibility all the way to the bank.
How true. Microsoft has not only taken advantage of the ignorance curve to create its monopoly, it also uses the ignorance of the courts to make the curve steeper.
However, the one fact that I feel the European courts aren't ignorant of is that Microsoft is an American company. There's no way that the cradle of Machiavellianism will allow the flow of information within their nations to be dictated by a foreign corporation. The French may be capitulators, but the German's will never take it.
20 years away? I remember, as a kid, in 1960, picking up a book called "Our Friend the Atom" and one of the predictions was that fusion power was twenty years away. I hope so. But I'm not counting on it.
Sounds like what I thought about my golf game in 1980 -- that I'd have on in a couple of years.:)
You're right - MS should be forced to support all its software for all eternity, back-porting everything to every version of Windows that they've ever released.
And you're wrong. MS should be forced to open-source the code once the EOL kicks in.
Actually, you've got a point. Installing apps on linux can be really overwhelming to new users. But, to moderately experienced users, installing apps does become a smooth process, and when the apps are installed on linux, they are better fit to the system's configuration than corresponding Windows apps. Consequently, they are more stable. They are also (mostly) free and don't have to be replaced or repurchased every couple of years.
What will eventually lead to greater adoption of Linux is the growing number of experienced users available to assist the newcomers. While Windows seems easier to work with, the reality is that it's just user-familiar, not user-friendly.
Now, maybe you can tell me how to install my original version of Quake on Windows XP Pro?
Mozilla javascript will run on Mozilla for Windows, AND on Mozilla linux, etc.
Mozilla itself is cross platform, even if some Mozilla javascript is not.
Java was intended to be cross-platform. By corrupting the API, Microsoft attempted to wreck the cross platform centerpiece of Sun's intellectual property.
That said, Mozilla is either standards compliant or not. Mozilla should have gotten this into the standard before incorporating it, not the other way around.
I think you're right about the market for non-DRM chips. There is one reason for a demand that may not yet be apparent -- preventing media content from being viewed at work.
I work for a small company that's beginning to grow, and I've been laying the groundwork to migrate to linux and open source for awhile now. I've been waiting for Longhorn to come out and render our main accounting package (the primary reason we are chained to MS) useless before I really begin the push. One of the key points I am going to make (other than all MS related apps are only rented, just like beer) is that online media viewing saps productivity in the office, and there's no way to remove Media player or IE from Windows. Switching from windows would make it more difficult to watch music videos and other commercialized content at work. And I'm sure the same is true and the costs/savings more easily presented in large corporate environments.
No DRM in our desktop boxes, no playtime on the clock. The greedier folks at MS, Intel, the MPAA, and the RIAA will see to that.
Yes, Wronghorn and hardware DRM may actually present a strong sales point for open source.
HARUMPH! You whippersnappers go on and talk about your 80 gopher huntin' elves. When I wanted to run MY first computer, I had to spit on a wire and stick it in a jar of bird poop for the 'lectricity.
Then I ph@sered so many text-based Klingons and Romulans into alphabetic oblivion that Skylab fell into the ocean and Walter Cronkite ran for the hills.
Slashdot Mirror
I know one thing for sure. The public use of the homeowners on the land is no different than the public use of the land in an office building. In fact, office buildings are largely unoccupied outside of regular business hours, while homes are occupied during off hours, AND business hours when the tenants of the home are retired, work at home, or stay at home. The structures these homes are being bulldozed for are privately owned, just like the homes. In short, there is no public use involved AT ALL, defined or not.
Better yet, be a true patriot and burn the flag in light of this clearly activist decision.
Too late... the Supreme Court has already burned it with this ruling. Or bulldozed it, more like.
I just saw on the news that New London's idea of "fair market value" for one of the homes is $120,000. Comparable properties in the area (but not condemned for development) are going for over 3 times that amount.
I hope all homeowners out there can sleep well tonight, because they may be sleeping in the street tomorrow.
And please note that all of the rabid right wing judges were in the dissent. It was the left wing of the court that just granted this mind blowing extension of government/corporate power.
One of the pillars of Marxism/Communism is the destruction of private property rights.
Public good? We don't know that this (New London's) or any other private development project resulting from siezed property will result in a public good. The phrase "public good" implies the current state as "bad for the public." What harm were the New London homeowners causing by maintaining their homes and paying their taxes? Even the court acknowledged the only reason the homes were condemned were because the developers wanted the property:
There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.
The homes weren't unsafe, unsightly, or harmful to the public in any way. Their owners just weren't greasing the local government's pockets with enough protection money to keep them from being legally stolen by developers.
I salute this decision. It's one more step towards reducing sprawl!
Good grief, man, what are you thinking? This decision opens the floodgates of sprawl. Why should a developer pay prime market value in the midst of a congested area when they can just have the city council condemn some less expensive property within the newly annexed city limits and force existing homes, businesses, schools, churches, etc. off (what before today's ruling was) their property for less money than what downtown property would go for.
Office buildings and hotels are just what are being disputed in this case, making the more far reaching ramifications of this decision less obvious to some. Manufacturers and *modern* housing developers will jump at the above mentioned method for land procurement.
How does this reduce sprawl? Developers/corporations just get the condemnation passed with the zoning; then they set the price without any overhead for litigation costs. If anything, this ruling makes sprawl cheaper, and therefore more likely.
This decision is worse than the Dred Scott decision. Notice that even in this case, however, that the Court's position was that Congress did not have the authority to deprive citizens of their property (Scott being deemed "property".) Now, the Supreme Court has decided that we have no private property, because the state can sieze it and sell it to another private owner for a profit (more taxes). In addition, today's ruling strips the rights of homeowners and places them in the same effective position that Scott was placed in 150 years ago -- that of a dehumanized legal construct with no rights in the courts.
I must grudgingly acknowledge that I underestimated the current makeup of the SCOTUS. They have managed to make a ruling worse than what are arguably the most unjust rulings (it took more than one ruling for Dred Scott) in the entire history of this country. They have wiped out private property and reduced homeowners to rightless slaves, powerless to challenge the whims of the state and deep-pocketed developers.
And this court did it all in one decision.
How about Fart? For Fermions At Reduced Temperature, of course.
Read the earliest reply to this post and tell me who's the troll.
Windows XP will be going the end-of-life way of Windows 2000 in the near future. Micros**t is just beta testing another fork-the-user method they're going to stick in Wronghorn before they stick it in users ... again.
I don't know about the person, but a culture that perpetuates female mutilation is indecent. Anyone coming from a disgusting culture such as that should leave that culture and its horrible indecent practices behind.
And anyone who replies with a "what about male circumcision?" line can have their dick cut off and leave the bone at home in a jar (women excepted, of course).
Sorry but Opensource is not a competitor.
You've got it wrong. Open source most definitely is a competitor; it competes for my desktop, and does so very well. Just because it is unburdened by outrageous licensing terms and costs does not mean it has no value.
If Microsoft is going to reside on the internet, they've got a responsibility to make their systems compatible with other systems using the same network. Otherwise, as a direct result of their monopoly, they would become defacto owners of all networks, controlling access to the data on all Windows machines connected to the network, regardless of the data owners wishes.
Imposing fees and/or stifling conditions on alternative systems to access data that the data owner may wish to share freely only benefits Microsoft. It's known as "double-dipping." If the aforementioned data owner is using a Windows machine to serve his data, that owner has already paid a fee to Microsoft, and Microsoft should not be entitled to charge or otherwise burden third parties.
Microsoft is laughing at the court's ignorance and gullibility all the way to the bank.
How true. Microsoft has not only taken advantage of the ignorance curve to create its monopoly, it also uses the ignorance of the courts to make the curve steeper.
However, the one fact that I feel the European courts aren't ignorant of is that Microsoft is an American company. There's no way that the cradle of Machiavellianism will allow the flow of information within their nations to be dictated by a foreign corporation. The French may be capitulators, but the German's will never take it.
20 years away? I remember, as a kid, in 1960, picking up a book called "Our Friend the Atom" and one of the predictions was that fusion power was twenty years away. I hope so. But I'm not counting on it.
:)
Sounds like what I thought about my golf game in 1980 -- that I'd have on in a couple of years.
..."no DRM whatsoever", which the submitter (and editor) seems to take it as.
Hardly. The monumental absurdity of the Intel statement stands by itself.
Atoms stay the same practically forever, if there is nothing around to ionize them.
:)
You mean something like and electron?
You're right - MS should be forced to support all its software for all eternity, back-porting everything to every version of Windows that they've ever released.
And you're wrong. MS should be forced to open-source the code once the EOL kicks in.
...I'm running Xine, mplayer, Flash, and Realplayer, and the multimedia file I can't open is a rarity.
Bully for you. My co-workers have difficulty installing a mouse.
Actually, you've got a point. Installing apps on linux can be really overwhelming to new users. But, to moderately experienced users, installing apps does become a smooth process, and when the apps are installed on linux, they are better fit to the system's configuration than corresponding Windows apps. Consequently, they are more stable. They are also (mostly) free and don't have to be replaced or repurchased every couple of years.
What will eventually lead to greater adoption of Linux is the growing number of experienced users available to assist the newcomers. While Windows seems easier to work with, the reality is that it's just user-familiar, not user-friendly.
Now, maybe you can tell me how to install my original version of Quake on Windows XP Pro?
Mozilla javascript will run on Mozilla for Windows, AND on Mozilla linux, etc. Mozilla itself is cross platform, even if some Mozilla javascript is not.
Java was intended to be cross-platform. By corrupting the API, Microsoft attempted to wreck the cross platform centerpiece of Sun's intellectual property.
That said, Mozilla is either standards compliant or not. Mozilla should have gotten this into the standard before incorporating it, not the other way around.
Yeah. Real interesting, that example.
This page requires Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0+ Users of other browsers can download a comma-separated values file (best viewed as a spreadsheet)
I wonder if it will work just as *perfectly* on IE7.
I think you're right about the market for non-DRM chips. There is one reason for a demand that may not yet be apparent -- preventing media content from being viewed at work.
I work for a small company that's beginning to grow, and I've been laying the groundwork to migrate to linux and open source for awhile now. I've been waiting for Longhorn to come out and render our main accounting package (the primary reason we are chained to MS) useless before I really begin the push. One of the key points I am going to make (other than all MS related apps are only rented, just like beer) is that online media viewing saps productivity in the office, and there's no way to remove Media player or IE from Windows. Switching from windows would make it more difficult to watch music videos and other commercialized content at work. And I'm sure the same is true and the costs/savings more easily presented in large corporate environments.
No DRM in our desktop boxes, no playtime on the clock. The greedier folks at MS, Intel, the MPAA, and the RIAA will see to that. Yes, Wronghorn and hardware DRM may actually present a strong sales point for open source.
HARUMPH! You whippersnappers go on and talk about your 80 gopher huntin' elves. When I wanted to run MY first computer, I had to spit on a wire and stick it in a jar of bird poop for the 'lectricity.
Then I ph@sered so many text-based Klingons and Romulans into alphabetic oblivion that Skylab fell into the ocean and Walter Cronkite ran for the hills.
Them was the days!
Sounds like the way Carl Sagan et. al. came up with the wormhole for his book Contact.
It's amazing how creative people can be when it makes them look good.
Rotation and quantum spin aren't the same. See http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/S/Sp /Spin_(physics).htm for a nice reference. Quantum spin may not require dimensions, but rotation does. The article may have inadvertently confused spin and rotation.
The concept of the vortex as a one dimensional object does, on the surface (pun intended), make sense to me, though.
How can a one dimensional object create a vortex, let alone be rotated. Both events require more than one spatial dimension, and also occur in time.
Maybe they meant a "thin string" of condensate? Or would that be to understandable to us morons?