And to forestall the incoming ignorance, yes, I know about Article I, Section 10. It prohibits the *states* from issuing legal tender that is not gold or silver. The Federal government is under no such restriction.

Actually, it is, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, which just about everyone in the US Federal Government ignores these days.

The reasoning, which you will no doubt find specious, is as follows: The 10th Amendment explicitly states that if a right isn't *granted* to the US Federal government by the Constitution, then it does not have that right. Rather, it is reserved to the States or to the People.

The biggest problem that I see when people have arguments about the US Constitution here is that people tend to cherry-pick it to support their position, rather than considering it as a whole, as it should be, a practice that is now even the norm, with hordes of lawyers nit-picking this, that and the other thing and obtaining rulings in their favor based upon interpretations of the minuscule, extended far beyond such.

The design and intent of the Constitution and its Amendments as a whole, complete, living document was to ensure the most constraint possible upon the Federal government, while still allowing it to function on behalf of the entire Union and its citizens as they envisioned, and to accommodate change, as those that came later saw fit, which they created via the Amendment process. It actually worked quite well until people (Read: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, which I deem pretty much the same thing, only in different phases of their parasitic lives with regards to the Federal government) started emphasizing one section or phrase out of context to obtain the results they wanted.

Now, in your example, the states are explicitly forbidden from issuing legal tender that is not gold or silver. This means they they cannot create fiat money, but does NOT mean that they can't coin legal tender from gold or silver, should they so desire.

And, by simple logic, applying the 10th Amendment as it should be used, The Federal government, not having been granted the power to create fiat money, does not have the right to do so, as Article I, Section 8 states, in part: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Now, call me old-fashioned, but I'd hardly call paper money/fiat money or other forms of non-specie currency "coining".

The rationalizations that led to the belief that the Federal government can do so are detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

Of course, the deed is long since done, and will not be undone easily, especially now that Federal Reserve holds sway over the Federal government, and by extension, over all of the citizens of the US.

Now, you might ask "Why would the Founders explicitly state that the States cannot use anything other than gold or silver to create legal tender, yet not explicitly forbid the Federal government from doing the same?"

The answer is a simple one, and is a result of their fundamental philosophy with regards to a Federal government and the framing of the Constitution. Barring an explicit statement concerning legal tender and its creation with regards to the States, nothing would prohibit them from creating fiat money on their own, potentially leading to disastrous economic results. This view is further bolstered by the fact that, again, by the 10th Amendment, as the Federal government was never explicitly granted the right to create fiat money as legal tender, that right *would have* fallen to either the States or the People, again because of the 10th Amendment, so they sought to prevent that, knowing as they did, that the 10th Amendment would also prevent the Federal government from doing the same, as the Constitution only explicitly *grants" powers to the Federal government, and the Federal government should never gain power by implication, interpretation or assumption. So, in short, they didn't explicitly forbid the Federal government from creating fiat money as legal tender simply because there was no need: It wasn't a power granted to it in the first place.

Of course, this is the best of my quasi-informed opinion: I'm still reading and learning... and in computer nerd parlance? My impression of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is this: The Constitution was the original codebase, and the Bill of Rights an upgrade to it, not a "bug fix", per se, but an enhancement to the original code, to clarify things, qualify them and refine their intent.

And in all honesty? As I read, re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Each time I am humbled, astonished and amazed at what our Founders wrought, so long ago. Were they perfect? Of course not. Was it perfect? No. Yet, working together, they created something beyond themselves, almost certainly in many cases even in the face of their own self-interests, selfishness and prejudices.

And they did so not just for themselves and those alive in their time, but for all of us that would come later, for all time.

Regards,

dj

What Is the Best Position To Work For Long Hours?

Isn't it obvious? From home, while lounging, with a Cisco 891 router somewhere at home which provides VPN tunnels to the corporate office for voice and data, And of course, with hospital-style trays at various levels and angles suspended over you, to hold your laptop, monitors, keyboard, mouse.

With of course, various liquid-dispensing tubes (water, caffeine, alcohol), suspended from hospital-style "trees", which you use as needed/justified *grin*.

I'm not sure why this is even a question - doesn't everyone work this way? *grin*

However, for those of you that have to work for long hours at your office? Get 2 desks, one a normal one, the other one that can be adjusted for height. Get 2 sets of monitors and keyboards and mice. One set you use when you're seated at your desk, the other that you can use while standing at the other desk. Alternate between them, as needed. And of course, you just undock your laptop when you go home.

Regards,

dj

P.S.

Oh, and for those of you whose employers won't agree to pay for such a setup, despite working long hours for them? Start looking for another job. We've a LOT of people with this setup in their cubicles where I work, and the money spent to set it up is FAR less than the money that they earn.

Regards,

dj

They have a long way to go before their situation gets dire.

It's a great start though. You go, Steve!

And YOU go, Tough Love! Rail against the Borg, from your basement lair!

It makes me nostalgic for the Slashdot of yore.

Thanks for that!

Regards,

dj

P.S.

It's a joke. Honest. You'd have to have been there, to appreciate it now, though.

you are taking something that is not yours

You're not taking anything. You're copying it

No, you're taking a *copy* of it by violating the copyright holders rights under the law. Regardless of whether or not it deprives the copyright holder of the work, it deprives them of the remuneration to which they are entitled - that is what copyright is, after all.

in a way that introduces no further cost to the person who created the original copy.

You are confusing physical goods and property with copyrighted materials. Whether the infringement costs the copyright holder additional money or not has nothing to do with the fact that they are entitled to be compensated for their copyrighted work as they deem fit.

It doesn't even have to have anything to do with entitlement.

It has *everything* do do with entitlement: What other motivation would you ascribe to copyright infringement other that that? Regardless of their rationalizations, the end result is that people that infringe other's copyright believe that they are justified in doing so for whatever reason, or no reason at all: In short, they do so because they believe that they are entitled to do so.

The content is there so it gets downloaded.

The content is there illegally.

In other words, it is theft.

No, my friend, it is rape. And murder. If you want to have a truly impressive argument, include as many inflammatory terms as you can think of.

And hyperbole such as that doesn't make for any kind of argument at all, as all it attempts to do is to obscure the true argument.

Now, all that being said, here's my position on copyright. I believe that copyright law in the US has been preempted by large corporations, who have lobbied for laws that have enormously extended it in not just time, but in reach. I'd like to see all extension to it revoked, leaving only the terms in the Constitution. If people want to change it, they are free to do so by the amendment process currently in place.

Further, nearly all of the rationalizations I've read on Slashdot start with flawed premises, with many of them stating or implying that copyrighted materials should be treated as physical property with regards to manufacture and pricing, i.e., since it costs next to nothing over time to reproduce, the people that create such should at least pass along the cost savings, or in your case, not care if you obtain it without paying them, as you seem to imply.

This, of course, is is simply an attempt to avoid paying for your entertainment, and no matter how you phrase it, it's selfish and greedy, the very same attributes that those who are pro-copyright infringement often attribute to organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA.

I believe that copyright owners are entitled to be paid for their works and to set prices for them as they see fit. This, in my estimation, is fair

Regards,

dj

He is a convicted felon, thief, and con artist. Not someone to admire.

Who said anything about admiring him? Even if your assessment is true, he's still entitled to due process under US law, by definition, from "Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886, as quoted in

http://open.salon.com/blog/scottstarr/2010/03/20/despite_recent_demagoguery_non-citizens_also_have_constitut

Most relevant part quoted here:

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: âNor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.â(TM) These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws⦠The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.â

The truth of the matter is, this is actually the best approach he could take, and one that he SHOULD take. By US law, his assets MUST be unfrozen at this point, because he has yet to be found guilty of any crime by due process of US law.

The real question is: Will the US Federal Government actually OBEY their own laws as interpreted by SCOTUS?

Somehow, I doubt it. There's too much money at stake, potentially, and there's no way that our Facist Overlords in the US are ever going to permit this: Crippling him by freezing his accounts worldwide, regardless of due process, gives them leverage, and there's NO way that they'll give up that advantage without a huge fight.

Look for the US Federal Government to try to turn this into a RICO case, to keep his assets frozen, by arguing that this is a case of "organized crime", in response to this.

You heard it here first.

Cynically,

dj br

Or does the US have the ability to put a hold order on money stoned in another country?

Yes, not only does the RIAA/MPAA have the ability to extend their influence overseas via the US Federal Government, so does the DEA: Stoned money in other countries is *definitely* under its jurisdiction, obviously it became stoned via illegal drugs!

Irreverently yours,

dj

I wonder how kindly businessmen trying to use the internet at the airport, hotel, or coffee shop for highly confidential business communications will take to knowingly being snooped.

Well, I'd hope that those businessmen are using VPN connections for those highly confidential business communications.

At my company, while we offer email access to our users' Exchange mailboxes via OWA and Outlook Anywhere, both are encrypted.

Access to internal company servers where work product is stored can only be accomplished from the outside world via our VPN, and so snooping at Internet cafes, airports, hotels, etc. wouldn't really be an issue.

I have set up several wireless hotspots for local businesses. At no time did I ever even try to snoop or log connections - it's way too much trouble, zero profit, and 100% chance of irritating the customer to do so.

Still, I'd set up a disclaimer page of some kind, after vetting it with the business' legal staff. Something along the lines of "This free service is provided with the understanding that it will not and must not be used for illegal purposes. Use of this service constitutes acceptance of these terms".

And I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems that such would be wise, and you, as the vendor/contractor should (must?) make them aware of these issues when you do this on their behalf. Covering your own ass is a good idea, too, so that you're protected as well, and you would be wise to consult your own lawyer about this.

Finally, of course, the obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, please consult your own lawyer as you see fit in this matter for competent legal advice, and for all other issues of legal import.

Regards,

dj

Seriously. I'll bet they call him Google because he thinks he knows everything.

Nah - he sounds like the 20-something MIS interns that we get... the running joke in the technical departments at my company is that if they lost access to Google they wouldn't know how to breathe, closely followed by the belief that if we cut off their Facebook access on the corporate network we'd get an immediate 50% drop in network traffic, followed by a brief spike in productivity until the withdrawal symptoms became too severe.

The biggest mistake by the framers was to not make that damn clause clearer.

It is clear. The problem is that everyone cherry-picks the Constitution to get the results that they want, and ignore the parts that would forbid it, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Regards,

dj

Except when I misuse a hammer I can't accidentally kill someone 50 yards way.

If you don't know how to properly handle a firearm, then you shouldn't be touching it at all. That way, nobody gets killed or hurt, including you.

Regards,

dj

Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?

I'm assuming that you're talking about the US Federal government. You are making two assumptions here:

1) That the US Federal government still exists to serve the citizens of the US and

2) That the corporations that benefit the most from the current labyrinth of Federal tax law, loopholes, etc., would actually permit that. No Federal taxes on corporations would actually help level the playing field, and there's NO way that the corporations that are benefiting from the US Federal tax code as it currently exists will ever permit that.

After all, they paid good money to lobby for them, and they're entitled to the rewards, right?

Cynically,

dj

Linux/Unix should already be a first choice for the business world, yet it's barely even known of. It doesn't make sense. Please discuss; this could use some real insight.

I hate to say this, because I'm going to get pounded for it, probably: It's not that it's barely known - any competent MIS/IT department looks at Linux on the desktop, on an ongoing basis, as a replacement for Windows in their environment, simply from a financial perspective.

My company is fairly OS agnostic: While our official desktop OS is Windows: XP on the old laptops/desktops, which are being refreshed with Windows 7 Pro x64 systems, and Windows 7 Pro x64 on all new laptops and desktops, those that wish to run Linux are allowed to do so, so long as doing so doesn't represent additional costs to the company (this, despite the fact that every computer we buy comes with a Windows 7 Pro x64 license).

The same for Apple computers: Want a MacBook Pro? Good for you! Request it from your manager, make your business case for it, and you can get one. HOWEVER: If your job duties require Windows-specific programs such as Visio or Project? Denied! We will not pay additional costs for a Windows license, plus the cost for Parallels (for some reason, all of the people that want Apple computers refuse to use VirtualBox, insisting that they NEED Parallels) so that you can have access to the software tools that you need to do your job, at additional cost to the company, when our standard Windows 7 x64 laptop will run those with just the additional licensing costs of Visio and/or Project.

Cheap? No, we're not being cheap, we're being frugal, and we're also insisting that our employees understand that the computers that we provide to them are for their use while doing their jobs at our company.

In a business environment, computers are tools, provided to employees to help them do their jobs. They are not status symbols nor e-penis enhancers, nor toys.

With regards to security? I can't speak for anyone else, but among other things at my company, I build the images for the laptops and desktops that we deploy, and I can tell you that they are as secure as any Windows-based computer can be.

We build the images based upon Least User Access (LUA) principles: When issued, a user's Windows 7 laptop is secure, all installed programs are up-to-date when issued (We use WSUS to update them, later). Their domain account has no local admin rights: We provide them with a separate, local, admin account, so that they can escalate privileges, and install software as they need, above and beyond the standard image.

In addition, the user's local admin account has no domain rights: This protects our network: If someone should escalate local privileges and infect their computer, it cannot touch our network by default.

This is, BTW, my approach to Windows security, since Windows NT Workstation, in a business environment (and at home!): LUA - and, in addition to sane security update practices and a good Enterprise AV program (I like Sophos - your mileage may vary)? Once we implemented it at my current company, our infection rate has dropped to nearly zero, company-wide.

And, since we've already taken the time to address these issues, and ensure that our base images are secure, updated, etc.? Switching to Linux on the desktop for purely security reasons isn't even a "blip" on the radar anymore.

Our user base so loves Outlook that lacking any real competition to it, combined with Visio and Project? Sorry, but those tools are so embedded in our company that there's NO way that our userbase is ever going to change.

And, remarkably, our company is actually prospering and growing, using those tools, using Windows 7 x64-based laptops/desktops, with Office/Outlook, Visio and Project, and our computers and network are secure and stable.

business already do spend a lot of money and time on trying to secure Windows, and cleaning up after it

Sorry, but, this is *so* 20th century, for the reasons I've already explained. Do it once, do it right, test it, image it, deploy it, update as needed. We don't spend any more time trying to secure Windows systems (server and desktop) than we do the Linux servers we have, because we address the issues in the same way, fundamentally: Create secure LUA images, test, deploy. Repeat on a regular basis, as needed.

I don't know who submitted this article, but from my perspective it's fundamentally flawed at best, and bigoted at worst.

With regards to IBM's banning of Cloud services such as DropBox? Using Linux doesn't make such more secure, by default: The whole issue is putting your company's data on another company's Cloud storage - that has nothing to do with Linux, or any other OS, at all.

Regards,

dj

The previous post is missing a disclaimer:

*If you can afford to lawyer up and get your shit back. Otherwise they'll gladly keep it until you drag them to court."

The previous post is missing a disclaimer:

Today, in the United Fascist States of America (UFSA for short, spread it around!), you're more likely to be branded a cyberterrorist, and then you'll be in a world of shit: You won't get any due process, because you are, after all, a terrorist. Hell, if you're overseas, President Obama might just authorize your assassination, because obviously the US Constitution doesn't apply in foreign lands, right?

Regards,

dj

P.S. I had an account on the Illuminati BBS when it was seized (had to call long distance from NY to get to it), and I was shocked, appalled and angered when I learned of the raid.

Although it worked out in the end, and Steve Jackson Games won, doing so was an enormous hardship for the company at the time. It was, in addition to the fact that they make great games, another reason that I bought as many of their games as I could at the time, and continue to do so to this day.

the fact that the European company of AMD

Beg your pardon, but AMD is not a European company, it is a US company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd

Regards,

dj