So my guess was that the human mind evolved to learn things faster/easier.
My guess is that in a few hundred years, the human mind didn't evolve much at all. OTOH, its probable that educational technology and methods improved, and the social conditions have changed in ways (such as the elimination of poverty) that reduce some of the drags on education in our world.
With Java 7 under GPL, why would anyone develop an AJAX application instead of a signed Java applet?
You know anyone who accesses your webpage will have a browser. Its likely that they will be able to active JavaScript in their browser if they need to. Its less likely that they will have a JVM installed or have the permissions need to install a JVM; plus a JVM install takes considerably more time than loading some JavaScript.
The reasons Java applets never took off were security concerns and limited consumer bandwidth.
The reason Java applets never took off were incompatible Java implementations (thanks, Microsoft!) and the fact that you couldn't assume people had Java when they visited your webpage. The former problem is mostly a thing of the past as a major factor, the latter is, however, not.
I don't agree with you on this, but FYI the GNU GPL version 3 will be compatible with the Apache 2.0 license.
No, the Apache 2.0 license will, if RMS's statement is correct, be compatible with the GPLv3, because derivative products of an Apache 2.0 licensed work will be able to be released under the GPLv3 (with a particular allowed modification).
The GPLv3 will not be compatible with the Apache 2.0 license, because derivative products of a GPLv3 licensed work will not be able to be released under the Apache 2.0 license.
What I want to know is, when will the ice in the antarctic melt?
I've heard that the bottom layer of ice in some of the large shelves has already melted, leading to a significant risk of very large segments of ice sheets sliding into the ocean and melting (and, through changes in ocean temperature and salinity, causing comparatively rapid changes in climate) in the next several decades.
Their front page says "Openserving will go live shortly" which suggest it isn't live yet. When I've seen systems that accepted sign-ups before they were live in the past, its been a pretty mixed bag of systems that would provide a normal automated welcome response but you couldn't access the service till it was live, sites that would provide a "we got your registration and will process it when we are ready to accept users" response, and sites that didn't respond at all until they were live.
If you go to openserving.com, they already have a description and tour, and its not really a traditional web hosting service. Its more like blogspot, though the details of the features are different (like the "democratic" sorting.)
(not all myths are about deities, just listen to any left-winger talking about the virtues of socialism and you'll wonder if he has ever learned anything about the past century's history)
You mean the century during which, along with the previous one, every advanced democracy adopted policies directly inspired by socialism, and the ones in which people are happier with the performance of their government generally were the ones that adopted more "socialist" policies than other advanced democracies?
I was talking about things people can infer about today in the future
"in 2000" is not in the future, its 6 years in the past. Maybe a calendar would help?
based on data that exists they will see millions of black people with HIV in africa and then nearby in europe, far fewer where the only difference being skin color.
Which won't show the kind of evolutionary advantage you suggest; you'll note that Europe still, lower HIV incidence or not, has a lower, not higher, rate of natural population increase than Africa. Individually, white skin may seem to be or be linked to an advantage in the modern world, by evolutionary standards, not so much.
Because the very existence of religion creates extremism, and if you want evidence of this then, well, you've got basically the whole of human existence to choose from.
Actually, the whole of human existence will show that humanity creates extremism, with or without religion. It's not like areligious or even antireligious ideologies in history don't have as many, proportionately, extremists as religious ideologies, only that religious ideologies are historically much more common.
And, for the open minded parent poster above, the christian 'bible' clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), for which you get to go to hell (Rom. 1:26-28).
No, you interpret it that way, but it doesn't "clearly state" what you say. Leviticus 18:22 by its bare words condemns bisexuality, if one assumes that the first reference is specific and the second general you could read it as a condemnation of male homosexuality instead, but you certainly can't read it as a condemnation of homosexuality generally without reading a lot into it.
And Romans 1:26-28 doesn't refer to anyone going to hell for anything, it refers to people being left manifestly degraded on Earth in the eyes of others without the facade of righteousness because of their defiance of divine will, and it refers to the overt, sexual conduct as the punishment and consequence, not the thing which provoked the consequence.
I think the reason you don't see many Open Source Java CMS tools is due to fairly weak Java support with most Web hosting providers.
Is it really true that there aren't many Open Source Java CMS tools?
I mean the list here suggest otherwise, though I'm not familiar enough with the tools to know if they are any good...
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that, in the context where the utility of both standards is still largely in the future (OpenXML has, if I'm not mistaken, has released implementations until Office 2007 is out OpenDocument has several implementations, but has key areas that are not yet included in the standard) I'm not sure that having the formula functionality crystallized earlier is necessarily a stroke in OpenXML's favor, particularly if the criticism of OpenXML as narrowly tailored to the existing MS Office featureset is accurate.
On the other hand, I thought I was clear in acknowledging that having that feature was important, and noting that difference was significant.
Number 1 - the AG's "opinions" represent the official legal opinion of the US federal government.
Wrong. They represent the official legal opinion of the executive branch of the federal government. If they were the official legal opinion of the federal government, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court, as the Attorney-General could just decide what was legal or not on his own.
Unlike your ignorant rantings, the opinion of the US Attorney General is given weight in a court of law.
It is given some, but rather variable, weight. For instance, because acting on reasonably-believed advice of officials responsible for enforcing the law can sometimes be a defense to criminal conduct, it has direct evidentiary weight, not because it is held to govern what is the law, but because of the fact of the published advice itself is relevant to the application of the law in those cases.
It is, in other cases, given weight similar to that given to scholarly legal works and nonbinding precedent; that is, it forms part of the body of related law and legal commentary that courts may consider in applying the binding law where the plain language and binding precedent are not, on their own, sufficiently clear to command a particular result.
The Constitution either assigns powers to a part of the federal government, or reserves them for the people. Anything else is left for the States.
First of all, you are wrong, the Constitution, expressly, does all of these things: 1. Assigns powers to parts of the federal government 2. Assigns powers to parts of the state governments (for instance, assigning the method of choosing Presidential electors to the state legislatures.) 3. Expressly denies powers to the federal government in general or specific portions of that government. 4. Reserves powers to the states without assigning them to any part of the state government 5. Directs action by the states (extradition clause of Article IV, Section 2) 6. Reserves rights to the people. 7. (In the past; Amendment XVIII) Directly prohibits individual, nongovernmental conduct.
Second, you seem to being looking at only one side of the rights issue. There is both the issue of who it belongs to and who it works against. Except where they are specifically states otherwise, Constitutional rights or powers that are reserved to someone other than the federal government (whether they belong to individuals or state) are only reserved (by the federal Constitution) against the federal government. Now, with powers reserved to the states, this doesn't matter, because there is no one else to consider them against. With rights of individuals, however, they don't apply to states except through provisions that expressly limit the powers of the states, which is why none of the Bill of Rights were applied to the states (though most states had broadly similar protections in their own law) by the federal judiciary until the 14th Amendment was held to apply (some of) them to the states through the action of the "due process" clause, an express limit on state power.
Standards, by definitions, are stifling. That's the whole point. You are restricting the featureset a complying application has available.
Er, no. Good standards often don't restrict featuresets, they specify required features, which isn't the same thing. A standard for an interchange format that hopes to be useful into the future will not hamstring new feature developments and use. One complaint I've seen levelled at OpenXML (which, as I haven't read the standard, I won't pretend to evaluate) is that it simply standardizes the Microsoft Excel featureset. The OpenDocument Formula drafts (which aren't yet standardized, being very actively revised) have a lot of (in the explanatory notes) consideration of harmonization between the featuresets of existing spreadsheet applications (and even consideration, in some areas, of directions that it seems likely that some applications may take in the future) in putting together what the format should handle.
Yes, it does say that. The history of the debates over the amendments and the pre-14th amendment interpretation by the courts make it clear that where the Constitution doesn't expressly limit the States, its provisions limit only the power of the federal government. Most of the rights in the Bill of Rights don't say who they apply against, and none of them were applied against the states until the 14th Amendment, and several haven't been (at least not as fully as they apply against the federal government) even after the 14th Amendment. (The seventh amendment is perhaps the most clear example of an entire amendment that has never been applied to the states, not even a little bit, and without the degree of controversy surrounding the 2nd, despite the fact that it, too, has no language limiting it to applicability against the federal government; for an amendment applied differently to the states and federal government, the 5th Amendment is a good example, since most of its provisions are applied to both, but the indictment requirement is not applied to the states.)
Its important to read not just the words, but consider the context: the Constitution is entirely about the federal government, it only concerns other things when it says it does.
Several posters have mentioned her rank. However, I think no has mentioned the fact she was the *first* female to achieve that rank in the US Navy and possibly the world.
She wasn't. She was made a commodore in 1983 and a rear admiral in 1985. The first female rear admiral in the US Navy was Alene B. Duerk in 1972, and the first female line officer to reach the rank of rear admiral in the US Navy was Fran McKee in 1976.
What kind of military WOULDN'T bear arms? I can't imagine what the founding fathers would have been thinking by including language to ensure that the nation's military had arms.
The militia is not the nation's military, they are two separate bodies. The national military provided for by the Constitution is the creature of the Congress and commanded by the President. The militia belongs to the states, is subject to regulation by Congress, and may in time of need be called into federal service; it is commanded by the President only when called into federal service. The idea that the second amendment exists only to protect firearm ownership in the context of the militia is that it exists as a limit on Congress so that it cannot prevent the states from maintaining a useful militia for their own needs, not that it exists to protect the federal military.
Looked at another way, its an example of the states protecting their "military" from being abolished by the federal government.
Reuters is carrying a story indicating that NBC, CBS, Fox, and Viacom are considering banding together to work on a competitive video-hosting site.
Uh, so just about the entire US broadcast industry is banding together to distribute content through a joint venture. I think the word you want is "anti-competitive", not "competitive".
That said, I work in a company which still runs a lot of COBOL code - a bank, funnily enough. I think banks are about the only people still using code written in the 70s *sigh*
The system that processes Medi-Cal (California's version of Medicaid) claims is also COBOL (though a lot of non-COBOL stuff handles the data before and after in many cases). Actually, lots of systems are COBOL. If you've got a stable, complex, mission-critical system that works well-enough, gutting it and reimplementing it from scratch in a new language is often an unnecessary and unjustifiable risk and expense until you get a massive change in requirements that forces you to do enough changes that its less expensive/risky to reimplement from the ground up.
If the meaning of "The People" is changed to indicate a state right, ALL our rights will be lost. Suddenly, speech, religion, assembly, redress, etc, will be State rights and everything that makes this country worthwhile will go into the shitter.
Even ignoring that it is possible for the same phrase to be interpreted differently in different contexts in the same document where there isn't a controlling definition applied, Neither the right to speech, nor either of the religion clauses, nor most of the rights in the Bill of Rights, refer to "the people". (In the first amendment, only assembly and petition are attached to "the people", and the phrase "the people" does not appear at all in the third or fifth through eighth amendments.
(Also, none of the Bill of Rights create rights enforceable against the state, anyhow, only those rights that the courts have found are incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment do that, which just happen to be a subset of the rights in the Bill of Rights.)
That being said, the 2nd amendment is the _only_ place in the Bill of Rights where "the people" are defined as a collective body, rather than individuals. And even then, only in the 9th Circuit's realm.
Er, no. As noted in U.S. v. Spruill, 61 F.Supp.2d 587 (W.D.Tx. 1999) [emphasis added]:
Five Circuit Courts of Appeal have determined that
the Second Amendment protects only a collective right. See, e.g.,
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693, 709) (7th Cir.
1999) (finding 922(g)(9) does not violate 2nd Amendment); Hickman
v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 100-01 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding plaintiff
lacked standing under 2nd Amendment, to sue for denial of permit to
carry weapon); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995)
(denying section 1983 claim based on 2nd Amendment because
plaintiff tailed to demonstrate that her application to purchase a
firearm was related to the preservation of a militia), United
States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-7 (6th Cir. 1976) (admitting
Miller, infra, did not reach the issue but finding it
"inconceivable" that 2nd Amendment, conferred individual right);
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 920-23 (1st Cir. 1942)
(finding Miller, infra, could not have meant that an individual
could possess a firearm if it had a military purpose, and upholding
felon in possession conviction).
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that in a few hundred years, the human mind didn't evolve much at all. OTOH, its probable that educational technology and methods improved, and the social conditions have changed in ways (such as the elimination of poverty) that reduce some of the drags on education in our world.
You know anyone who accesses your webpage will have a browser. Its likely that they will be able to active JavaScript in their browser if they need to. Its less likely that they will have a JVM installed or have the permissions need to install a JVM; plus a JVM install takes considerably more time than loading some JavaScript.
The reason Java applets never took off were incompatible Java implementations (thanks, Microsoft!) and the fact that you couldn't assume people had Java when they visited your webpage. The former problem is mostly a thing of the past as a major factor, the latter is, however, not.
No, the Apache 2.0 license will, if RMS's statement is correct, be compatible with the GPLv3, because derivative products of an Apache 2.0 licensed work will be able to be released under the GPLv3 (with a particular allowed modification).
The GPLv3 will not be compatible with the Apache 2.0 license, because derivative products of a GPLv3 licensed work will not be able to be released under the Apache 2.0 license.
License compatibility is not symmetric.
A lot of handwaving centering around the faith that if it is really a bad thing, it will automagically be solved by market action.
I've heard that the bottom layer of ice in some of the large shelves has already melted, leading to a significant risk of very large segments of ice sheets sliding into the ocean and melting (and, through changes in ocean temperature and salinity, causing comparatively rapid changes in climate) in the next several decades.
Their front page says "Openserving will go live shortly" which suggest it isn't live yet. When I've seen systems that accepted sign-ups before they were live in the past, its been a pretty mixed bag of systems that would provide a normal automated welcome response but you couldn't access the service till it was live, sites that would provide a "we got your registration and will process it when we are ready to accept users" response, and sites that didn't respond at all until they were live.
The details of its features advertised by openserving.com are different than either of those; its seems to me broadly similar to blogspot, though.
If you go to openserving.com, they already have a description and tour, and its not really a traditional web hosting service. Its more like blogspot, though the details of the features are different (like the "democratic" sorting.)
You mean the century during which, along with the previous one, every advanced democracy adopted policies directly inspired by socialism, and the ones in which people are happier with the performance of their government generally were the ones that adopted more "socialist" policies than other advanced democracies?
"in 2000" is not in the future, its 6 years in the past. Maybe a calendar would help?
Which won't show the kind of evolutionary advantage you suggest; you'll note that Europe still, lower HIV incidence or not, has a lower, not higher, rate of natural population increase than Africa. Individually, white skin may seem to be or be linked to an advantage in the modern world, by evolutionary standards, not so much.
Actually, the whole of human existence will show that humanity creates extremism, with or without religion. It's not like areligious or even antireligious ideologies in history don't have as many, proportionately, extremists as religious ideologies, only that religious ideologies are historically much more common.
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that, in the context where the utility of both standards is still largely in the future (OpenXML has, if I'm not mistaken, has released implementations until Office 2007 is out OpenDocument has several implementations, but has key areas that are not yet included in the standard) I'm not sure that having the formula functionality crystallized earlier is necessarily a stroke in OpenXML's favor, particularly if the criticism of OpenXML as narrowly tailored to the existing MS Office featureset is accurate.
On the other hand, I thought I was clear in acknowledging that having that feature was important, and noting that difference was significant.
Wrong. They represent the official legal opinion of the executive branch of the federal government. If they were the official legal opinion of the federal government, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court, as the Attorney-General could just decide what was legal or not on his own.
It is given some, but rather variable, weight. For instance, because acting on reasonably-believed advice of officials responsible for enforcing the law can sometimes be a defense to criminal conduct, it has direct evidentiary weight, not because it is held to govern what is the law, but because of the fact of the published advice itself is relevant to the application of the law in those cases.
It is, in other cases, given weight similar to that given to scholarly legal works and nonbinding precedent; that is, it forms part of the body of related law and legal commentary that courts may consider in applying the binding law where the plain language and binding precedent are not, on their own, sufficiently clear to command a particular result.
First of all, you are wrong, the Constitution, expressly, does all of these things:
1. Assigns powers to parts of the federal government
2. Assigns powers to parts of the state governments (for instance, assigning the method of choosing Presidential electors to the state legislatures.)
3. Expressly denies powers to the federal government in general or specific portions of that government.
4. Reserves powers to the states without assigning them to any part of the state government
5. Directs action by the states (extradition clause of Article IV, Section 2)
6. Reserves rights to the people.
7. (In the past; Amendment XVIII) Directly prohibits individual, nongovernmental conduct.
Second, you seem to being looking at only one side of the rights issue. There is both the issue of who it belongs to and who it works against. Except where they are specifically states otherwise, Constitutional rights or powers that are reserved to someone other than the federal government (whether they belong to individuals or state) are only reserved (by the federal Constitution) against the federal government. Now, with powers reserved to the states, this doesn't matter, because there is no one else to consider them against. With rights of individuals, however, they don't apply to states except through provisions that expressly limit the powers of the states, which is why none of the Bill of Rights were applied to the states (though most states had broadly similar protections in their own law) by the federal judiciary until the 14th Amendment was held to apply (some of) them to the states through the action of the "due process" clause, an express limit on state power.
A CMS is a server-side sytem, so whether users turn Java off in the browser shouldn't matter.
No, its not
Yes, it does say that. The history of the debates over the amendments and the pre-14th amendment interpretation by the courts make it clear that where the Constitution doesn't expressly limit the States, its provisions limit only the power of the federal government. Most of the rights in the Bill of Rights don't say who they apply against, and none of them were applied against the states until the 14th Amendment, and several haven't been (at least not as fully as they apply against the federal government) even after the 14th Amendment. (The seventh amendment is perhaps the most clear example of an entire amendment that has never been applied to the states, not even a little bit, and without the degree of controversy surrounding the 2nd, despite the fact that it, too, has no language limiting it to applicability against the federal government; for an amendment applied differently to the states and federal government, the 5th Amendment is a good example, since most of its provisions are applied to both, but the indictment requirement is not applied to the states.)
Its important to read not just the words, but consider the context: the Constitution is entirely about the federal government, it only concerns other things when it says it does.
She wasn't. She was made a commodore in 1983 and a rear admiral in 1985. The first female rear admiral in the US Navy was Alene B. Duerk in 1972, and the first female line officer to reach the rank of rear admiral in the US Navy was Fran McKee in 1976.
The militia is not the nation's military, they are two separate bodies. The national military provided for by the Constitution is the creature of the Congress and commanded by the President. The militia belongs to the states, is subject to regulation by Congress, and may in time of need be called into federal service; it is commanded by the President only when called into federal service. The idea that the second amendment exists only to protect firearm ownership in the context of the militia is that it exists as a limit on Congress so that it cannot prevent the states from maintaining a useful militia for their own needs, not that it exists to protect the federal military.
Looked at another way, its an example of the states protecting their "military" from being abolished by the federal government.
Uh, so just about the entire US broadcast industry is banding together to distribute content through a joint venture. I think the word you want is "anti-competitive", not "competitive".
The system that processes Medi-Cal (California's version of Medicaid) claims is also COBOL (though a lot of non-COBOL stuff handles the data before and after in many cases). Actually, lots of systems are COBOL. If you've got a stable, complex, mission-critical system that works well-enough, gutting it and reimplementing it from scratch in a new language is often an unnecessary and unjustifiable risk and expense until you get a massive change in requirements that forces you to do enough changes that its less expensive/risky to reimplement from the ground up.
Even ignoring that it is possible for the same phrase to be interpreted differently in different contexts in the same document where there isn't a controlling definition applied, Neither the right to speech, nor either of the religion clauses, nor most of the rights in the Bill of Rights, refer to "the people". (In the first amendment, only assembly and petition are attached to "the people", and the phrase "the people" does not appear at all in the third or fifth through eighth amendments.
(Also, none of the Bill of Rights create rights enforceable against the state, anyhow, only those rights that the courts have found are incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment do that, which just happen to be a subset of the rights in the Bill of Rights.)
Er, no. As noted in U.S. v. Spruill, 61 F.Supp.2d 587 (W.D.Tx. 1999) [emphasis added]: