People like to make so much of the Internet into an analog of the so called "digital town square". The irony is, in the town square, everybody can see you and know who you are.
Many are up in arms about "online privacy" forgetting that what they are really trying to do is make something that is essentially public private. I've never been under the impression that anything I access via a web browser or other network service is anything but public. I've never trusted that Google or anyone else would protect my data and I don't create Internet artifacts that would embarrass me.
Look, would go around your neighborhood asking people about strange fetishes, your strange wart, or about anything else that you'd prefer people not know about you? No. So why expect that every piece of information that you put on the Internet should be so guarded?
I couldn't view every page in every browser on every device before the iPhone or iPad, so how am I limited?
This isn't about freedom, it's about a market choice. People have bought the iPhone and iPad in droves and have said, more or less, that the devices are compelling enough to buy even without Flash support.
Apple doesn't have anywhere close to a monopoly in the mobile device space, so I don't understand the problem. Someone enlighten me please.
Aside from the Rosetta Stone, the British Museum isn't really that interesting.
Churchill's War Rooms, The Tate Modern, and the Royal Observatory and Greenwhich are far more interesting. Also, don't forget to day trip to Bletchley Park.
The British Museum just doesn't have anything very interesting.
In reference to people being concerned that they'd lose access to data if their internet connection were down: '"If your cloud is down it affects any computer you're on," he said. "I'd like to see a comparison of the cloud with what you have today. I think the cloud will compare very, very favourably[sic]."'
Um, no. If my "cloud" is down, i.e., my internet connection, my laptop or desktop can still run everything. I can still work on my visio diagram, I can still listen to music, I can still do my taxes. I can do all of that because the bleeding data that I need is on the damn machine.
Not to mention, why would I EVER entrust any corporation to safeguard or ethically use any data that I store on their "cloud"? Can I create my own 'local' "cloud"? What will the EULA terms be? Can Google decide to start digging through your data to send advertisers your way? Does Google now own the data?
I have a "smartphone" in large part because I want to be able to access certain information and tools without having to lug a laptop around.
I've always wondered why I would want to tether my laptop to my phone. It seems to me that my phone, an iPhone in my case, allows me to use a browser, access my email, and get maps and directions, so why do I want to tether my laptop?
Every use case that I can think of places me someplace where I can get some kind of WiFi, which would be cheaper and faster.
I don't know, maybe I just don't need to be connected to everything all the time, in every way possible.
I've never understood what is so novel and interesting about someone taking bits of other people's music and making something of their "own" out of it.
Isn't it just another kind of kindergarten style collage that isn't really original? This is like an author constructing a novel out of pieces of other works, there's nothing new or innovative about it.
What happens when we run out of original material to "mashup"? Will we then get mashups of mashups? It is a terribly proletarian "art" if you can even call it that. If you have that kind of talent and ambition, why not create truly original music?
This is the type of reactionary/. story that I love. Somebody posts about a one-sided post about some possibly egregious policy of some company.
What we don't have is comment from the other side, either in the form of email or direct comment from the company in question. The XBox Live contract forbids the use of offensive terms. Are terms like lesbian and gay themselves offensive? No, but there is no way to have apply a policy automatically and have it understand context, so sexxylesbian69 would be singled as would WellAdjustedLesbian8. I'd like to see a response from Microsoft on the actual policy.
Do they automatically suspend accounts with "offending" tags and then reinstate them when the user can clarify the use? I don't know, the article doesn't tell me. In this example, there is likely some bad customer service, the CSR might not understand the policy and might just be quoting the only thing they know. Those who believe they have been wronged ought to push to have the call escalated to a supervisor who might be able to fully explain the policy and actually help.
It would be nice if the linked article were actually a piece of "journalism rather than another opportunity to prove how bad Microsoft is, even though we still by their products.
I am always amazed at how the sheep bleat against the kinds of things that Apple and other companies do, only to see those companies policies remain unchanged and their sales go up.
Really, it is a complete joke to see groups like the EFF engage in this kind of action when it really only gives the companies they attack free publicity. As long as there is demand for the iPhone and growth in the marketplace, Apple has no reason to change their behavior, it is as simple as that. If they time their response to lawsuits and the aggressiveness of the their response, they will only gain more customers, perhaps many interested in thumbing their nose at Apple and jailbreaking the phone.
The only reason that Apple is making any argument against jailbreaking is to appear to the mobile carriers that they are doing something to prevent possible security violations. When there is incremental revenue available from jailbreaking, Apple will change its tune.
Actually, the sandtrout may have come to Arrakis from an extra-terrestrial origin. If you pay really, really, really close attentionto Children of Dune, you'll find that mentioned.
So the worms came from aliens. Just like the Mayan temples.
If you can't put together 5,000 lines of stuff only you wrote at all, or you can't because "I wrote it at the company and they won't let me" that says a lot too (mostly that you don't do any programming at all outside of work, but also that perhaps you don't have any experience working in an enlightened programming culture). That's a little myopic, isn't it? If someone goes to work for a start up straight out of school and spends for years working 60-80 hours a week writing code, you'd expect that they could just send you code? Are a programmer's skills only worthy or measurable if he produces something publicly available?
Why would it matter if a programmer worked outside his normal job? Maybe some programmers have a balanced sense of self and don't feel the need write software outside their normal job, it doesn't make them any less skilled. How would you evaluate "500 lines of their best code"? Are you going to compile or evaluate the context in which it was written?
I've done a lot of work in my field, and if you could talk to co-workers or clients with whom I've worked, you'd find that I am quite good at what I do. I couldn't provide you with "samples" of my work as it would generally be inappropriate to do so. Since none of my work is on an open source project, I suppose you would not hire me even though I have a great reputation with my peers.
"In other words, streaks of 56 games or longer are not at all an unusual occurrence. "
um....um.....um.....
In the odd little universe where statistics really have meaning, the result of the SIMULATIONS showed a likelihood of these streaks. Unfortunately, this research neglects the fact that real life is drastically different from purely statistical "universes". the real fact is that it happened once and never again.
Joe DiMagio, or any batter, isn't just the result of statistics, he is the result of skill, practice, and circumstance. I always like it when mathy people try and put some statistical "context" around what happens in sport, they always forget that no matter how valid their statistics, real life often tells a different story. Remember, any event ultimately has a 50-50 chance. It either happens or it doesn't. The particular outcome is rarely significant, it is a binary proposition.
let's be clear, for the most part, people who learned and write exclusively in interpreted languages are not programmers.
They are scripters. Writing interpreted code is a lot like writing a glorified shell script and often times obfuscates much of what a "traditional" programmer would normally do. A programmer whose background is in python and perl should learn C next, and then probably Lisp.
I've met a lot of people who know a lot about interpreted languages, but they don't know why many of those languages are so bad with handling things like arrays and what their shortcomings are. Programmers ought to start out learning Lisp(yes, it is interpreted but it has greater educational and practical value) and C.
The majority of the comments about this boil down to the following :
"Don't be a sheep, dress and act like you could care less"
or
"People who care too much about looking and acting professional are too stupid to bother with"
The "article" isn't extolling the virtue that everyone should be out for a high level position, just that the traditional "geek" doesn't conduct himself professionally enough to get that kind of consideration. I fail to understand why there has to be a strict dichotomy between professionalism and "geeks". Why does non-conformity have to be the rule at the so-called "geek" level?
It's as if I wouldn't be taken seriously in IT if I didn't wear transformers T-shirts or moon boots everyday. One very salient point from the article is about the binary watch. It is very off putting to anyone when someone constantly goes out of the way prove how smart he is. It is one thing if you have the binary watch or clock because the aesthetic works with your suit or something, but otherwise it says "I think I am smarter than you".
So he doesn't strike some tech people as particularly odd as far as technical people go.
Yes, but he is odd as a normal, functional human being goes. Why does the meme persist in which brilliance can only go hand in hand with eccentricity?
Surely, many people have been both brilliant and eccentric, but a fair many others have been brilliant and perfectly functional. I would describe myself as a tremendous nerd, yet I am perfectly capable of functioning in normal society.
So, this defense relies on the fact that Hans Reiser is so brilliant, it gets in the way of being able function as a normal person. Or he so brilliant as to dupe his lawyers and jury into believing that he couldn't possibly have committed the crime because of his extreme eccentricity.
Alienware is "the trendiest tech company in the world" according to the article.
Would someone care to explain how this is so? I would say that Apple takes that title. Though, if not Apple, certainly not a company that very few people have heard of. What percentage of the PC buying market really knows who Alienware is. I work for a tech company and would bet less than half of the people there would be familiar with the name.
RMS uses a Thinkpad? That's not free, is it? Shouldn't the XO be free to everyone? I mean, if it has free software, the hardware ought to be free as well.
I am going to go start the Free Hardware Foundation and agitate for free hardware.
I have used a lot of languages in my time time and when I was finally dragged, kicking, screaming, biting, and gnashing my teeth into perl, I thought perl was one of the worst languages ever provided to people who went to college and got some form of "MIS" degree. Then I took a job that had a bunch of stuff written in Python and I praised perl.
Let's face it, Python is another step in the complete destruction of useful languages. Rather than force people to actually understand how things work, we now create "languages" that do everything for us. Perl and Python are not really languages. They are gigantic synonyms that insulate the user from anything remotely like what the underlying operating system or hardware is doing and it is debilitating innovation.
There is nothing that I have ever written in Perl that I could not have accomplished in C using less memory and fewer CPU cycles. The same goes for Python.
If you are interested in remaining ignorant and writing crap code in a crap grammar, great. Otherwise, who cares? Isn't Python 3.0 yet another conduit through which we can obfuscate"programming" and allow a community college 'MIS' major to claim he has the education as an MIT Computer Science graduate?
which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.
These polls are not scientific. They use some scientific methods to determine whom to poll and where to poll, but they are not necessarily what one might call "scientific".
The fact is that unless every voter is polled and answers honestly, then the poll is merely a mathematical approximation, not an absolute result. While Diebold machines are, almost undeniably, faulty, the polls can't be relied on as proof of errors. The fact remains that something that is statistically unlikely doesn't make it impossible. All polls have a margin of error and have no control, so one should take what they indicate with a grain of salt.
This isn't to say that the mathematics used in constructing the polls and interpreting results are not sound, just that they can't account for actual numbers of voters or factors that may cause more turn out in favor of one candidate over the other. If the poll determines that 40% of likely voters are going to vote and 60% actually do, then the poll is likely to be wrong because the reality changed, not its math.
But these are all trite, morality plays lacking any subtlety.
Morality plays show us a story with a defined message. Truer art is more ambiguous. Take "The Godfather" as an example. Did Michael ever have a choice, is he a tragic figure, or did he choose to become who he was? I don't know if that question could be asked. In the end "The Godfather" doesn't really make a judgment. Star Trek always seeks to interpret meaning on behalf of the viewer. War is bad. Force euthanasia is bad. Religion is bad.
The villains in Star Trek are always clear. Who are the villains in "Romeo and Juliet"? The Montegues? The Capulets? Mercucio? Romeo and Juliet? A story is told, but the moral is ours to discover.
This is just typical of television, it is not solely Star Trek's issue. Almost every program that has been on television fails to stand up as real art. Star Trek is interesting in that it somehow has been held up by many as much greater than it is. No one would argue that "Family Ties" or "Cheers" was high art.
What of "MASH"? "MASH" was a program that had better talent, snd better writing, yet hasn't elicited the kind of loyalty that Star Trek has.
I am well receptive of the value of pop-culture, after all, today's pop-culture is tomorrow's high art. I merely object to mis-interpreting low art as high art.
Quite frankly, Star Trek has never been particularly relevant. It may have a wide following amongst certain groups, but none of the series has ever been very good creatively, and none really stand the test of time.
The original series got a lot of press for having a diverse cast, but that diversity was diminished by the fact that the minorities in the main cast were all bit players. The main characters were still all white, and the writing was far from original or compelling. Flashing forward, the more recent series were either white male dominated homages to cliche, or relied on the crutch of time travel to the point of absurdity. It has often been said that Star Trek only had 5 or so plots along with a time travel modifier.
In the end, most incarnations of Star Trek were cliched products of their time that lacked truly compelling stories and failed to find a timeless relevance. There is little about Star trek that still resonates in this day. So the demise of a sepulchre to this irrelevance is not worth a fight.
This is good stuff. Regardless of whether or not the resolution is worthwhile, effective, or politcally reasonable, it is good to see the Congressional record including SOME kind of (relatively) strong repudiation of this administration's actions.
Slashdot Mirror
People like to make so much of the Internet into an analog of the so called "digital town square". The irony is, in the town square, everybody can see you and know who you are.
Many are up in arms about "online privacy" forgetting that what they are really trying to do is make something that is essentially public private.
I've never been under the impression that anything I access via a web browser or other network service is anything but public. I've never trusted that Google or anyone else would protect my data and I don't create Internet artifacts that would embarrass me.
Look, would go around your neighborhood asking people about strange fetishes, your strange wart, or about anything else that you'd prefer people not know about you? No.
So why expect that every piece of information that you put on the Internet should be so guarded?
I couldn't view every page in every browser on every device before the iPhone or iPad, so how am I limited?
This isn't about freedom, it's about a market choice. People have bought the iPhone and iPad in droves and have said, more or less, that the devices are compelling enough to buy even without Flash support.
Apple doesn't have anywhere close to a monopoly in the mobile device space, so I don't understand the problem.
Someone enlighten me please.
Aside from the Rosetta Stone, the British Museum isn't really that interesting.
Churchill's War Rooms, The Tate Modern, and the Royal Observatory and Greenwhich are far more interesting.
Also, don't forget to day trip to Bletchley Park.
The British Museum just doesn't have anything very interesting.
In reference to people being concerned that they'd lose access to data if their internet connection were down:
'"If your cloud is down it affects any computer you're on," he said. "I'd like to see a comparison of the cloud with what you have today. I think the cloud will compare very, very favourably[sic]."'
Um, no. If my "cloud" is down, i.e., my internet connection, my laptop or desktop can still run everything. I can still work on my visio diagram, I can still listen to music, I can still do my taxes.
I can do all of that because the bleeding data that I need is on the damn machine.
Not to mention, why would I EVER entrust any corporation to safeguard or ethically use any data that I store on their "cloud"?
Can I create my own 'local' "cloud"? What will the EULA terms be? Can Google decide to start digging through your data to send advertisers your way?
Does Google now own the data?
Pressing questions.
I have a "smartphone" in large part because I want to be able to access certain information and tools without having to lug a laptop around.
I've always wondered why I would want to tether my laptop to my phone. It seems to me that my phone, an iPhone in my case, allows me to use a browser, access my email, and get maps and directions, so why do I want to tether my laptop?
Every use case that I can think of places me someplace where I can get some kind of WiFi, which would be cheaper and faster.
I don't know, maybe I just don't need to be connected to everything all the time, in every way possible.
I've never understood what is so novel and interesting about someone taking bits of other people's music and making something of their "own" out of it.
Isn't it just another kind of kindergarten style collage that isn't really original? This is like an author constructing a novel out of pieces of other works, there's nothing new or innovative about it.
What happens when we run out of original material to "mashup"? Will we then get mashups of mashups? It is a terribly proletarian "art" if you can even call it that. If you have that kind of talent and ambition, why not create truly original music?
This is the type of reactionary /. story that I love. Somebody posts about a one-sided post about some possibly egregious policy of some company.
What we don't have is comment from the other side, either in the form of email or direct comment from the company in question. The XBox Live contract forbids the use of offensive terms. Are terms like lesbian and gay themselves offensive? No, but there is no way to have apply a policy automatically and have it understand context, so sexxylesbian69 would be singled as would WellAdjustedLesbian8. I'd like to see a response from Microsoft on the actual policy.
Do they automatically suspend accounts with "offending" tags and then reinstate them when the user can clarify the use? I don't know, the article doesn't tell me. In this example, there is likely some bad customer service, the CSR might not understand the policy and might just be quoting the only thing they know. Those who believe they have been wronged ought to push to have the call escalated to a supervisor who might be able to fully explain the policy and actually help.
It would be nice if the linked article were actually a piece of "journalism rather than another opportunity to prove how bad Microsoft is, even though we still by their products.
I am always amazed at how the sheep bleat against the kinds of things that Apple and other companies do, only to see those companies policies remain unchanged and their sales go up.
Really, it is a complete joke to see groups like the EFF engage in this kind of action when it really only gives the companies they attack free publicity. As long as there is demand for the iPhone and growth in the marketplace, Apple has no reason to change their behavior, it is as simple as that. If they time their response to lawsuits and the aggressiveness of the their response, they will only gain more customers, perhaps many interested in thumbing their nose at Apple and jailbreaking the phone.
The only reason that Apple is making any argument against jailbreaking is to appear to the mobile carriers that they are doing something to prevent possible security violations. When there is incremental revenue available from jailbreaking, Apple will change its tune.
Did they use maker hooks to capture the worms?
Are these just little makers?
Actually, the sandtrout may have come to Arrakis from an extra-terrestrial origin.
If you pay really, really, really close attentionto Children of Dune, you'll find that mentioned.
So the worms came from aliens. Just like the Mayan temples.
Why would it matter if a programmer worked outside his normal job? Maybe some programmers have a balanced sense of self and don't feel the need write software outside their normal job, it doesn't make them any less skilled. How would you evaluate "500 lines of their best code"? Are you going to compile or evaluate the context in which it was written?
I've done a lot of work in my field, and if you could talk to co-workers or clients with whom I've worked, you'd find that I am quite good at what I do. I couldn't provide you with "samples" of my work as it would generally be inappropriate to do so. Since none of my work is on an open source project, I suppose you would not hire me even though I have a great reputation with my peers.
"In other words, streaks of 56 games or longer are not at all an unusual occurrence. "
um....um.....um.....
In the odd little universe where statistics really have meaning, the result of the SIMULATIONS showed a likelihood of these streaks.
Unfortunately, this research neglects the fact that real life is drastically different from purely statistical "universes". the real fact is that it happened once and never again.
Joe DiMagio, or any batter, isn't just the result of statistics, he is the result of skill, practice, and circumstance. I always like it when mathy people try and put some statistical "context" around what happens in sport, they always forget that no matter how valid their statistics, real life often tells a different story. Remember, any event ultimately has a 50-50 chance. It either happens or it doesn't. The particular outcome is rarely significant, it is a binary proposition.
let's be clear, for the most part, people who learned and write exclusively in interpreted languages are not programmers.
They are scripters. Writing interpreted code is a lot like writing a glorified shell script and often times obfuscates much of what a "traditional" programmer would normally do. A programmer whose background is in python and perl should learn C next, and then probably Lisp.
I've met a lot of people who know a lot about interpreted languages, but they don't know why many of those languages are so bad with handling things like arrays and what their shortcomings are. Programmers ought to start out learning Lisp(yes, it is interpreted but it has greater educational and practical value) and C.
How is it harder to read than Python?
At least Tcl isn't as freaky about indentation. Fortran 90 did away with indent-specific formatting.
The majority of the comments about this boil down to the following :
"Don't be a sheep, dress and act like you could care less"
or
"People who care too much about looking and acting professional are too stupid to bother with"
The "article" isn't extolling the virtue that everyone should be out for a high level position, just that the traditional "geek"
doesn't conduct himself professionally enough to get that kind of consideration. I fail to understand why there has to be a
strict dichotomy between professionalism and "geeks". Why does non-conformity have to be the rule at the so-called "geek" level?
It's as if I wouldn't be taken seriously in IT if I didn't wear transformers T-shirts or moon boots everyday. One very salient point from the article
is about the binary watch. It is very off putting to anyone when someone constantly goes out of the way prove how smart he is.
It is one thing if you have the binary watch or clock because the aesthetic works with your suit or something, but otherwise it says "I think
I am smarter than you".
So he doesn't strike some tech people as particularly odd as far as technical people go.
Yes, but he is odd as a normal, functional human being goes.
Why does the meme persist in which brilliance can only go hand in hand with eccentricity?
Surely, many people have been both brilliant and eccentric, but a fair many others have been
brilliant and perfectly functional. I would describe myself as a tremendous nerd, yet I am perfectly
capable of functioning in normal society.
So, this defense relies on the fact that Hans Reiser is so brilliant, it gets in the way of being able
function as a normal person. Or he so brilliant as to dupe his lawyers and jury into believing that
he couldn't possibly have committed the crime because of his extreme eccentricity.
Alienware is "the trendiest tech company in the world" according to the article.
Would someone care to explain how this is so? I would say that Apple takes that title.
Though, if not Apple, certainly not a company that very few people have heard of. What
percentage of the PC buying market really knows who Alienware is. I work for a tech
company and would bet less than half of the people there would be familiar with the name.
RMS uses a Thinkpad? That's not free, is it?
Shouldn't the XO be free to everyone? I mean, if it has free software, the hardware ought to be free as well.
I am going to go start the Free Hardware Foundation and agitate for free hardware.
I have used a lot of languages in my time time and when I was finally dragged, kicking, screaming, biting, and gnashing my teeth into perl, I thought perl was one of the worst languages ever provided to people who went to college and got some form of "MIS" degree. Then I took a job that had a bunch of stuff written in Python and I praised perl.
Let's face it, Python is another step in the complete destruction of useful languages. Rather than force people to actually understand how things work, we now create "languages" that do everything for us. Perl and Python are not really languages. They are gigantic synonyms that insulate the user from anything remotely like what the underlying operating system or hardware is doing and it is debilitating innovation.
There is nothing that I have ever written in Perl that I could not have accomplished in C using less memory and fewer CPU cycles. The same goes for Python.
If you are interested in remaining ignorant and writing crap code in a crap grammar, great. Otherwise, who cares? Isn't Python 3.0 yet another conduit through which we can obfuscate"programming" and allow a community college 'MIS' major to claim he has the education as an MIT Computer Science graduate?
The article's point is that US companies may not be competitive in labor-driven manufacturing, but still have a lot to offer in terms of technology.
Why the fear mongering over toll systems by posting an article that has nothing to do with any "rights issues"?
# find ${SOMEPATH} -type f -exec grep -i "${PATTERN}" {} \;
which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.
These polls are not scientific. They use some scientific methods to determine whom to poll and where to poll, but they are not necessarily what one might call "scientific".
The fact is that unless every voter is polled and answers honestly, then the poll is merely a mathematical approximation, not an absolute result. While Diebold machines are, almost undeniably, faulty, the polls can't be relied on as proof of errors. The fact remains that something that is statistically unlikely doesn't make it impossible. All polls have a margin of error and have no control, so one should take what they indicate with a grain of salt.
This isn't to say that the mathematics used in constructing the polls and interpreting results are not sound, just that they can't account for actual numbers of voters or factors that may cause more turn out in favor of one candidate over the other. If the poll determines that 40% of likely voters are going to vote and 60% actually do, then the poll is likely to be wrong because the reality changed, not its math.
But these are all trite, morality plays lacking any subtlety.
Morality plays show us a story with a defined message. Truer art is more ambiguous.
Take "The Godfather" as an example. Did Michael ever have a choice, is he a tragic figure, or did he choose to become who he was?
I don't know if that question could be asked. In the end "The Godfather" doesn't really make a judgment. Star Trek always seeks to interpret
meaning on behalf of the viewer. War is bad. Force euthanasia is bad. Religion is bad.
The villains in Star Trek are always clear. Who are the villains in "Romeo and Juliet"? The Montegues? The Capulets? Mercucio? Romeo and Juliet?
A story is told, but the moral is ours to discover.
This is just typical of television, it is not solely Star Trek's issue. Almost every program that has been on television fails to stand up as real art.
Star Trek is interesting in that it somehow has been held up by many as much greater than it is. No one would argue that "Family Ties" or "Cheers" was high art.
What of "MASH"? "MASH" was a program that had better talent, snd better writing, yet hasn't elicited the kind of loyalty that Star Trek has.
I am well receptive of the value of pop-culture, after all, today's pop-culture is tomorrow's high art. I merely object to mis-interpreting low art as high art.
Quite frankly, Star Trek has never been particularly relevant. It may have a wide following amongst certain groups, but none of the series has ever been very good creatively, and none really stand the test of time.
The original series got a lot of press for having a diverse cast, but that diversity was diminished by the fact that the minorities in the main cast were all bit players. The main characters were still all white, and the writing was far from original or compelling. Flashing forward, the more recent series were either white male dominated homages to cliche, or relied on the crutch of time travel to the point of absurdity. It has often been said that Star Trek only had 5 or so plots along with a time travel modifier.
In the end, most incarnations of Star Trek were cliched products of their time that lacked truly compelling stories and failed to find a timeless relevance. There is little about Star trek that still resonates in this day. So the demise of a sepulchre to this irrelevance is not worth a fight.
Here you go : cspan feed of kucinich )ok, you don't trust links : http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=e2700866-e9e8-4b59-8d67-d8df83c107ae.
This is good stuff. Regardless of whether or not the resolution is worthwhile, effective, or politcally reasonable, it is good to see the Congressional record including SOME kind of (relatively) strong repudiation of this administration's actions.