Kudos to EditorDavid and Slashdot for performing some actual, original journalism and showing some technical capabilities in Slashcode that are infrequently visible to the users.
Implementation is a bit spotty, though, with the screenshot hosted on Imgur -- meaning UK 'dotters can't see it.
Still trying to figure out what she meant when she said, "Beige. I think I'll paint the ceiling beige."
It means she's neither a hooker ("Are you done yet?") nor your mistress ("That's it, you're done?").
I used to religiously read his newspaper columns, and I've bought a few of his books in the past. He is pretty funny... however I'm not sure what this has to do with Slashdot.
Dave Barry is deeply intertwined with the origins of Slashdot. The very pseudonym of our co-founder, CmdrTaco, is a reference to a Dave Barry column.
Unfortunately, the Miami Herald's archive does not appear to include Dave Barry's entire serialized oeuvre (Just most of it), and the only other citation I can find for "Commander Taco" related to Dave Barry is from his book, Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week, reportedly in an essay about the worst places to have a business lunch. Also unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book to double-check.
The first term was 14 years, not 18, and today’s life-plus-70 extensions run completely against what the framers intended.
Many of the amendments do too.
12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, etc.
They all change how things worked. Things the framers set up. Things that the framers intended.
However, at the same time, the framers did provide a way to change COTUS via amendments. So, arguably, the framers intended for people to make the country work in a fashion other than what the framers intended. The wisdom of making such changes is open to debate.
Since a "change mechanism" was clearly intended, and the framers clearly understood that it could be used to make COTUS work in a way other than they intended, I don't think "run completely against what the framers intended" is a very strong or persuasive argument. Those men were wise enough to understand that they were not gods and that time would demonstrate they may have gotten a few things wrong. Maybe copyright is one of those things. Maybe they would agree that it should be 70 years plus the life of the copyright holder, or whatever.
I'm not arguing that the copyright situation isn't a problem (or that it IS a problem), only that the argument about running against intentions is not a good basis for addressing the issue.
Your point is valid; however, you've conflated two related but distinct concepts: Constitutional changes, e.g., amendments, and Statutory changes, e.g., laws and regulations. Constitutional changes have a rigidly defined process for approval and are expected to be difficult, time-consuming, and carefully considered before implementation. Statutory changes are much more flexible, although they are constrained by Constitutional limits. Copyright straddles these two concepts: it's an explicitly authorized Constitutional function, enacted by statute and regulation. The "limited times" is the Constitutional constraint. Legislation -- laws and regulation -- cannot legitimately override a Constitutional constraint. Therefore, Congress' continued copyright extensions, in some cases retroactively, such that they never expire are violating not only the unwritten social contract but also a plain text reading of the Constitution. SCOTUS has thus far punted on the question of what constitutes "limited" and where Congress should draw the line; but in my not so humble opinion, we crossed that line the first time Congress retroactively extended copyright on existing works.
The Framers' intent here was clear, and until we amend the Constitution, it must be respected in Statute.
This comment exemplifies why, after more than 20 years of the never-ending parade of dupes, a proclivity to encourage trolling, and several ownership changes, I still frequent Slashdot on the daily.
Thank you, Steve.
Apophis’ flyby will have no practical impact on maintaining Starlink orbits, unlike the Moon, which requires routine station-keeping adjustments.
I had no idea the moon required station-keeping... What will happen if the Mooninites go on strike (Or are arrested in Boston and deported?
Every company associated with AI scams loses status.
E Jean Carroll claimed that Trump raped her in a changing room after she invited him in to watch her try on lingerie. Does that pass the smell test? "Come watch me strip and put on sexy underwear in this private room", sure sounds to me like, "come in here and f-k me!"
This argument looks suspiciously like the classic, "She was asking for it. Did you see the way she was dressed?"
Consent can be withdrawn at any point prior to penetration. The legal standard is very clear.
I turned on Fox News and was watching some of the "outrage" and "alarm" about these "drones."
Even more alarming, when those illegal drones make babies those baby drones will be US Citizens!!!
[C]onnecting the North and South Island of New Zealand, with 1.2GW capacity
So very, very close to achieving time travel!
Universal Basic Electricity
The reason not to do this isn't technical; it's economic.
If you think the CryptoBros and AI Hypesters are bad now, wait until you give them free electricity, too.
UBI, despite being a direct grant of money, limits the damage that any one person can do to his or her neighbors, and is substantially more difficult to use to remove value from the overall economy. UBE, by contrast, would permit the wastrels among the Crypto and AI crowd to blow even more of a shared and limited resource on things that have no tangible expression and have limited or negative economic value to non-participants (and negative economic value to most participants as well, although they apparently think that the next sucker will make them rich, or that there really is such a thing as a free lunch).
(Spoken as someone who supports the idea of UBI, incidentally. Also, "UBE" has already been taken as an initialism: the spammers use it to obfuscate the evil of their electronic diarrhea with the technical-sounding "Unsolicitied Bulk Email" alias.)
Well, that and the fact the teacher's unions pad the school with tons of extra administration that takes most of the money. It isn't unheard of for a school district to spend 50% of its budget on administration. So much of it really is stolen but there is still plenty getting to the classroom.
I don't know what part of the country you're in, but my SWAG (based on being both married to and the parent of teachers as well as having worked in education policy and administration myself) would suggest that precisely zero administrative overhead is a result of "teacher's [sic] unions pad[ding] the school with tons of extra administration". Teachers' unions and administration have an adversarial relationship, as the teachers belong to the union while the administrators do not (and in most jurisdictions, cannot).
Administrators have their own, non-union, organizations; while they may do political advocacy in addition to their professional development and networking functions, with very few, very local exceptions, they are most definitely not collective bargaining units of any kind.
It therefore follows that teachers do not have an interest in increasing the number of administrators, nor is it logical to posit that teachers would want less money for themselves and more money for either administrators or administrative busywork.
If unions have any impact on the number of administrators, it is almost certainly a net negative; beyond periodic union contract negotiations, which are typically handled by salaried administrators who would be on the job regardless (the superintendent, assistant superintendents of HR, etc.), union-employer relationships are not significantly greater time-sinks than any other employee-employer relationship. Based on this, coupled with your claim that funds are "stolen" rather than being sent to teachers and classrooms, it logically follows that teachers (and their unions) are not the cause.
written with a laughable made up name like MythicalFirstname One-Two-OrEvenThreeSurnames.
. Do you mean J.D. Vance as an example? Aka James Donald Bowman aka James David Hamel who bearing Take graduation changed his name to J.D. Vance and then changed it later so periods be removed so he's just "JD Vance."
So, did your parents name you "derplord" (grandparent poster) and "Midnight_Falcon" (parent poster)? And are you known by those noms de plume on other fora besides Slashdot? Or do you, also, change your stripes from time to time depending on context?
If so -- however much I dislike and enjoy mocking JD Vance, his political stances, and his choices of political allies -- you should probably find something more substantive to complain about.
After all, it's not like any other recent-ish national political figure has had a name change before ascending to prominence.
written with a laughable made up name like MythicalFirstname One-Two-OrEvenThreeSurnames.
. Do you mean J.D. Vance as an example? Aka James Donald Bowman aka James David Hamel who bearing Take graduation changed his name to J.D. Vance and then changed it later so periods be removed so he's just "JD Vance."
So, did your parents name you "derplord" (grandparent poster) and "Midnight_Falcon" (parent poster)? And are you known by those noms de plume on other fora besides Slashdot? Or do you, also, change your stripes from time to time depending on context?
If so -- however much I dislike JD Vance, his political stances, and his choices of political allies and enjoy mocking him -- you should probably find something more substantive to complain about.
After all, it's not like any other recent-ish national political figure has had a name change before ascending to prominence.
"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27
