Linus becoming polite on his e-mails is going to happen right after the Linux kernel gets ported entirely to C#.
My standard reply for this kind of issue is, simply linking this 3sec video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmnN3eVMWgA
Clue in creationists using this as "proof" earth is only 9000 years old in 3
Remember to print in big, block letter. Standard fonts, nothing fancy. The bigger they are, the easier they will be for OCR to recognize. Use double spacing also. Use standard 7bit characters if you can, to avoid codepage problems in the future.
Forget printed encoding. They are not efficient.
One option would be tape drivers (LTO etc), but considering the amount of data we are talking about, it would probably be prohibitively expensive.
The problem with any kind of encoding, for long time storage, is having a reading decide. Even barcode scanners might not be available 10 years from now.
Get one of those thin flash cards, save the data on it, and tape it to the printed paper.
I mean, c'mon. What's the point of having it ONLY on paper? Yes, this is the backup of the backup. So what? Add another layer and save you the trouble later. Or two layers. It is obviously not too much data, since you are considering backup it up on paper. So just for a few 5ers and get some low capacity flash cards, make lots of copies.
I mean, seriously? This is news?
Extra! Extra! Companies that can sell cheaper makes the ones that can't close. Companies that sell big can force producers to adjust their prices. Companies change prices based on what customers are willing to pay. Extra! Extra!
Whoever wrote this, the moment he said "real price", he just won the moron of the year award.
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
Your statement is not far from the truth. Notice that the USA is not a true democracy. There is no direct voting, and the votes of all citizens do not carry the same weight. Although I wouldn't go as far as calling it an autocracy, it is not so different than an aristocracy, since a part of the population has more political power than others. It is odd that a country that gave the world presidentialism, and whose constitution was one of the landmark of the modern state and the democratic state, could have one of the least democratic, democratic election processes...
But this is a totally different discussion.
..anything but a dictionary, right?
You mean I should not using something that gives the definition for the specific context we are using the word in, but instead use something that gives several different possible meanings, for several different possible contexts, that might not even include the specific one ?
*shocked*
Legitimacy is given by the people
Right, and you know who ratified the Constitution? The People. If the authority isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, the people have not consented, and the authority is not legitimate.
I see an eerie resemblance between this argument and that of morality/ethics with Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians....
s/People/God/g
s/Consitution/Bible/g
s/Elect/Inspire/g
We're beginning to have a schism between fundamentalist constitutionalists and catholic (lower-"c") traditionalists in the US....
Thank you. That is exactly the question of legitimacy.
In pre-modern times, be it monarchy or theocracy, the source of legitimacy was god. Directly. The kind if the appointed representative of god.
In modern times, we have republics, where the people are the legitimate source of the constituent power (the power that CREATES the constitution). But we also have theocratic and quasi-theocratic states, where there is a power behind that, so the bible is the source of the constituent power.
And here is the interesting part of a quasi-theocratic state (which some are trying to turn the USA into): the true constituent power has no limits or bounds except international treaties regarding human rights. That it. If the constituent power is bound by the bible or religion, it is not a true source of legitimacy, that moves back in the chain and is now no longer the people, but the bible/god/whatever.
When that happens, you pretty much destroyed the whole idea of a republic, and turns back into a quasi-theocracy, or a theocracy disguised as if it were a republic. Really, really bad idea.
Do you understand that you don't get to make up definitions of words?
Yup. Which is why I'm questioning his use of the word "legitimacy".
I welcome anyone who doesn't agree to read books on "Theory of State" and "General Theory of State".
Legitimacy is given by the people
Right, and you know who ratified the Constitution? The People. If the authority isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, the people have not consented, and the authority is not legitimate.
No, you have your facts backwards. The people gave the constitution legitimacy. And only the people can give legitimacy. Only the original source of the constituent power can give legitimacy. Not the product of that constituent power. The constitution gives legality.
If an elected president appoints a congress representative, is that representative legitimate? No. Legitimacy is not inherited.
If the elected president makes a decision that is within his constitutional powers, it is a legitimate decision. Pay attention here: I'm talking about making the decision, not the decision itself. The ability to make the decision is what defined if it is legitimate. If the decision itself (the case here) is against the constitution, the decision is legitimate and ILLEGAL. (And overall an asshat decision, but that is besides the point).
Be careful with this chain of causality you are trying to establish there. Because, otherwise, you might end up with something like this:
People ratified the constitution; constitution establishes the election of president; president was elected; president disbanded the congress and replaced all representatives with appointees. And since it is all in the chain, it is all legitimate. So no, the making of a decision that is within his legitimate powers to make is legitimate. If that decision contradicts the constitution, it is ILLEGAL.
Remember Nixon? What he did was illegal, not illegitimate.
Not really. US government authority is granted by the Constitution. Outside those bounds there is no authority at all. Therefore any claims of authority are illegitimate.
What a stupid nitpick.
You obviously doesn't know what legitimacy means, since you keep making arguments about legality.
Legality is given by the constitution. The constitution is the base and source of the legal system.
Legitimacy is given by the people (thus = elected representative) in a democratic republic (like the USA).
Maybe it is time you all take responsibility by the people you elected. Oh, you didn't vote on him? Damn, democracy is a bitch when people don't agree with you, isn't it?
If it's not specifically authorized in the Constitution, it's not legitimate authority.
No. That is ILLEGAL, not illegitimate. Those are two completely different things.
There's laws (in theory at least) in the US to protect whistle blowers, even those who release information the way he did. While we can argue back and forth over whether he'll get a fair trial, he is entitled to his day in court. From what I've read of it, the information gathering being done is against the US constitution, and he should be exonerated.
So why, then, did he choose to go into exile rather than accept the consequences and justify his actions in court? And what did he think he had to gain by going to Julian Assange? These are the questions people need to be asking about this situation...
I'm sorry, but your arguments sounds a lot like the ones we hear against anonymity, and in favor or letting the government spy on its people.
The reason he went into exile is simple: he doesn't trust the government. And rightly so.
Maybe he doesn't want to be a martyr?
illegitimate authority
Ha! You wish it was illegitimate authority. Unfortunately, those are your elected representatives. Totally legitimate.
Oh, right, that is sad, not funny
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
