Slashdot Mirror

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me where the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to do those things you listed. Please.

MM, see:

"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

So a police force is legitimate for tax funding because it is an agent of government to repel attempts by others to use force or coercion to violate your rights.

Proper governments exist simply to stop one man from taking the life, freedom, or property of another.

• What percentage of the Founding Fathers were Christian?
• What percentage of the population as a whole was Christian at the time of founding? in 1850? in 1900? today?
• Are there ANY references to God in Constitution of the United States or Bill of Rights? (I'll answer this one for you: no. [1])
• In what years were the words "In God We Trust" added to coins? to paper money? (I'll ansewr this one too: 1865 and 1964 respectively. [2])

/joeyo

1) http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_f reedom/constitution/constitution.html
2) http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/curre ncy/in-god-we-trust.html

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

> and it would be up to you to show evidence that you didn't kill the cashier, 'cause they already have evidence that you did.

Um, nope. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights provide the commonly heard "presumption of innocence until proven guilty".

The actual part of interest is the 5th Ammendment which partially reads "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ...").

They *don't* have evidence you commited a crime. They have evidence that a gun did, which they might or might not be traced to you, depending on the situation.

They have to prove you did it...you don't have to prove your innocence (buts its obviously in your best interest to assist in proving you *didn't* do it).

> and it would be up to you to show evidence that you didn't kill the cashier, 'cause they already have evidence that you did.

Um, nope. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights provide the commonly heard "presumption of innocence until proven guilty".

The actual part of interest is the 5th Ammendment which partially reads "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ...").

They *don't* have evidence you commited a crime. They have evidence that a gun did, which they might or might not be traced to you, depending on the situation.

They have to prove you did it...you don't have to prove your innocence (buts its obviously in your best interest to assist in proving you *didn't* do it).

When Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States

Hmmm...unless TJ had access to email, he would have had a difficult time participating in the Constitutional Convention. He was in Europe at the time, not Phil(th)adelphia. See here for TJ's bio. The CC was convened in May of 1787 and the list of delegates shows that TJ was not one of them.

once people learn something, they can reuse that knowledge

I suggest that you reuse the knowledge that I have imparted to you.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

and

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The former you attribute, correctly, to TJ (from a letter dated 8/13/1813 to one Isaac McPherson). The second attribution, from the United States Constitution, which, as pointed out above, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing, seems, shall we say, a little contradictory. (sorry about all the commas -- surely none were necessary) Have you even read what you posted?

We need to remind people that copyright, like most laws in the US, is a balance between two forces, and the scale should not be tipped too far to one side.

Your coup de grace suggests that the two passages you quote are capable of reconciliation. That is somewhat akin to saying "Fish need bicycles" and "Fish don't need bicycles" are capable of reconciliation. While the point is perhaps reasonable, the way you attempted to make it was a giant mogolian clusterfuck.

In short, user956, despite the attribution of "Insightful" comments to you by Slashtard moderators, you qualify for the "Fucktard Asshat Award" for July 8, 2003. Congratulations.

Mark this as "Flamebait" if you will. I have karma to burn.

GF.

When Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States

Hmmm...unless TJ had access to email, he would have had a difficult time participating in the Constitutional Convention. He was in Europe at the time, not Phil(th)adelphia. See here for TJ's bio. The CC was convened in May of 1787 and the list of delegates shows that TJ was not one of them.

once people learn something, they can reuse that knowledge

I suggest that you reuse the knowledge that I have imparted to you.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

and

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The former you attribute, correctly, to TJ (from a letter dated 8/13/1813 to one Isaac McPherson). The second attribution, from the United States Constitution, which, as pointed out above, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing, seems, shall we say, a little contradictory. (sorry about all the commas -- surely none were necessary) Have you even read what you posted?

We need to remind people that copyright, like most laws in the US, is a balance between two forces, and the scale should not be tipped too far to one side.

Your coup de grace suggests that the two passages you quote are capable of reconciliation. That is somewhat akin to saying "Fish need bicycles" and "Fish don't need bicycles" are capable of reconciliation. While the point is perhaps reasonable, the way you attempted to make it was a giant mogolian clusterfuck.

In short, user956, despite the attribution of "Insightful" comments to you by Slashtard moderators, you qualify for the "Fucktard Asshat Award" for July 8, 2003. Congratulations.

Mark this as "Flamebait" if you will. I have karma to burn.

GF.

When Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States

Thmoas jefferson did NOT put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution. In fact, he put nothing at all into the Constitution. Why? Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.

... that plain old ASCII is one constant that hasn't needed changing.

I think you're a little unclear as to what ASCII is. As the "A" in "ASCII" indicates, it's oriented towards American applications. And it consists of a mere 127 characters, which includes 32 control characters that you don't use in text.

In point of fact, Project Gutenberg has long outgrown the 96 graphic characters in ASCII, though I think they themselves are ignorant of the fact. The seem to have experimented with characters until they found a set that displays the same on "normal" Windows, Macs and Unix/Linux. The result is something they call "extended ASCII" but that's actually subset of both ISO's Latin1 character set and Microsoft's Latin1 code page.

When is this an issue? Well, I'm a DP volunteer, and I'm concentrating on the Britannica 11th edition. Lots of geographic entries, all of which contain degree symbols. This symbol is not in ASCII! If you follow the DP instructions, you end up entering byte 186 (decimal). If you're using the ISO or Microsoft Latin1 set (and if your computer is localized for the U.S., Canada, or Western Europe, you probably are) then 186 does in fact display as a degree symbol. But if your system is localized for Eastern Europe, you're probably using Latin2, and this byte stands for an S with a cedilla accent!

In short, "ASCII" is actually less universal than well-formed HTML. In which you represent the degree symbol with a character entity (°) that's the same everywhere.

Indeed, you can open up the original Declaration of Independence document with your standard web browser, and you can still read it just fine.

Hardly a representative example. The Declaration of Independence was hand-written, and thus doesn't include a lot of fancy fonts or formatting. A better example is a contemporary novel, such as 1984.

As it happens I just finished re-reading this one. I read a Plucker file that somebody had transformed from an HTML version, which in turn came from the Project Gutenberg "ASCII" version. Readable enough. But all the typographic nicities -- italics, boldface, etc. -- were reduced to ALL CAPS in the text version, and that was retained in the HTML version. Pretty distracting -- made me feel like somebody was shouting at me. Double Plus Ungood! Thoughtcrime!

...once the data is put into ASCII text format, projects like this [XML] can and are being done.

You make it sound easy. A lot of information is lost when your primary version is "ASCII". It all has to be put back by hand. There's no avoiding this for the large body of existing Gutenberg texts. And of course as recently as 5 years ago, there wasn't a real choice anyway. Even HTML had issues, and serious XML tools didn't exist.

But now XML technology is pretty mature. It makes sense to store new Gutenberg texts in XML. If people still want "ASCII" copies, the XML is easily transformed into that. Though I a lot more people will want the HTML version -- a format which is actually accessible to more people than "ASCII".

There are two reasons this won't happen soon.

The first is that somebody will have to design and implement the necessary XML apps for inputing and proofreading the texts. (Which would alsio elminate a lot of the errors proofreaders make, like entering [Greek: Tau] when they mean [Greek: T].) A huge project. As it stands, the people who maintain the DP web site have their work cut out just to keep the existing software working. That's a vali

Here's a discussion of Whitney's patent problems. In then end, though, he won his court cases, although, by that time, his patents were within a few years of expiring.

"It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

That excerpt was taken from Santorum's AP interview. [Yes, yes, free registration required]

It should be noted that he made that statement (and many others) regarding a specific case, but I still find it alarming that my representative seems to think I have no right to privacy.

Apparently he never read the Bill of Rights. Last I knew, the Ninth Amendment stated we had rights not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments. I'd like to think a basic level of privacy is one of them.

For those interested in the letter of the law, as published in Federal Register on October 27, 2000 (FR 64556):

[from section III part C] "After reviewing all the comments and testimony of the witnesses who appeared at the hearings, the Register concludes that a case has been made for exemptions relating to two classes of works: (1) Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications; and (2) Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness."

The above summary is actually codified into law in 17 U.S.C. 702 Sect 201.40, Exemption to prohibition against circumvention, and can be found in the same FR publication on page 64574. The period of the exemption is temporary, it covers the period from October 28, 2000 through October 28, 2003 only. If the copyright office does not renew these this time around those exemptions will expire.

But what's really interesting is that all of the reasons for their decisions as well a a thourough discussion of other possible excemptions which were considered but not selected! Included among these are most of slashdot's favorites, such as DVDs, video games, reverse engineering, research, etc. Yes it's a government document and looks intimidating, but it's well worth a close read by everybody. As noted a new round of hearings is underway; I encourage everybody to read up on why many exemptions failed last time around and what needs to be done to present a better case next time.

1. The loss of individuality. Majority rules, so the President may not be sympathetic with each citizen's needs or aspirations.
2. Cost to the citizen. I have to pay taxes whether I like the government or not.
3. Exclusive representation. Courts are required to treat all members of the "nation unit" fairly even if they're in the opposing party.

Besides the more mainstream stuff, there are also some really interesting oddball things hanging around. For instance, John F. Kennedy's Favorite Waffle Recipe. Or a letter from a 12-year-old Fidel Castro to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Or, most essential of all, When Nixon met Elvis.

Although I'm a little confused about what exactly the big news is...I've been browsing the NARA website for about 5 years now.

Besides the more mainstream stuff, there are also some really interesting oddball things hanging around. For instance, John F. Kennedy's Favorite Waffle Recipe. Or a letter from a 12-year-old Fidel Castro to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Or, most essential of all, When Nixon met Elvis.

Although I'm a little confused about what exactly the big news is...I've been browsing the NARA website for about 5 years now.

Besides the more mainstream stuff, there are also some really interesting oddball things hanging around. For instance, John F. Kennedy's Favorite Waffle Recipe. Or a letter from a 12-year-old Fidel Castro to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Or, most essential of all, When Nixon met Elvis.

Although I'm a little confused about what exactly the big news is...I've been browsing the NARA website for about 5 years now.

It is interesting that you link to the GPO website for the FR rather than the NARA site. The official record keeper and editor of the FR is NARA, wheras the GPO is just responsible for the physicial reproduction and publication. Both run websites, but I find the NARA site to be much better. Also don't forget their joint website Regulations.Gov which went online earlier this year to try to better track proposed regulations still in their comment period and keep the US public better informed.

For those who don't know, the Federal Register is perhaps the most important function of the US National Archives, and most relevent to US citizens' day-to-day activities. I especially like the fact the that NARA FR website is updated daily with each new issue, including a very well organized table of contents. Furthermore each "publication" within the FR is available in both text and PDF format (no proprietary MS formats here!).

Perhaps of the few things which I would like to see improved are: (1) online avilability of FR issues prior to 1998, (2) more frequent revision of the CFR, (3) easier cross reference between issues, dates, and page numbers, (4) an RSS feed of the daily table of contents, (5) FTP access to the FR, and (6) digitally signed (GPG?) issues.

As far as the functional duties of the NARA, keeping the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth are incredibly important, but usually don't affect the citizen directly...those historic documents' power really is expressed indirectly by governing what Congress can do and how the Justice department works...they are just the framework on which the bulk of the legislation and regulations hang. Please don't get me wrong, those foundational documents are what defines the US and and our freedoms, and as such are the most important documents we have. But seriously those documents are very stable and unchanging and don't require much action on the part of the NARA to maintain beyond being just a glorified museum.

But the NARA is right at the center of the US government and has duties way more important than playing museum.

The Federal Register is where the many thousands and thousands of highly detailed regulations, notices, presidental orders and so forth are recorded. It is the very presence of these writings in the Federal Register which makes them official and binding on the US citizens. The Federal Register is the primary means by which the government informs the country about what it expects us to do and not do. And it is the NARA which has the ultimately important responsibility of recording what's official and what's not. That's an incredibly powerful position if you think about it.

It is interesting that you link to the GPO website for the FR rather than the NARA site. The official record keeper and editor of the FR is NARA, wheras the GPO is just responsible for the physicial reproduction and publication. Both run websites, but I find the NARA site to be much better. Also don't forget their joint website Regulations.Gov which went online earlier this year to try to better track proposed regulations still in their comment period and keep the US public better informed.

For those who don't know, the Federal Register is perhaps the most important function of the US National Archives, and most relevent to US citizens' day-to-day activities. I especially like the fact the that NARA FR website is updated daily with each new issue, including a very well organized table of contents. Furthermore each "publication" within the FR is available in both text and PDF format (no proprietary MS formats here!).

Perhaps of the few things which I would like to see improved are: (1) online avilability of FR issues prior to 1998, (2) more frequent revision of the CFR, (3) easier cross reference between issues, dates, and page numbers, (4) an RSS feed of the daily table of contents, (5) FTP access to the FR, and (6) digitally signed (GPG?) issues.

As far as the functional duties of the NARA, keeping the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth are incredibly important, but usually don't affect the citizen directly...those historic documents' power really is expressed indirectly by governing what Congress can do and how the Justice department works...they are just the framework on which the bulk of the legislation and regulations hang. Please don't get me wrong, those foundational documents are what defines the US and and our freedoms, and as such are the most important documents we have. But seriously those documents are very stable and unchanging and don't require much action on the part of the NARA to maintain beyond being just a glorified museum.

But the NARA is right at the center of the US government and has duties way more important than playing museum.

The Federal Register is where the many thousands and thousands of highly detailed regulations, notices, presidental orders and so forth are recorded. It is the very presence of these writings in the Federal Register which makes them official and binding on the US citizens. The Federal Register is the primary means by which the government informs the country about what it expects us to do and not do. And it is the NARA which has the ultimately important responsibility of recording what's official and what's not. That's an incredibly powerful position if you think about it.

First the question won't be asked because the meaning of the word privacy will have been altered beyond recognition. You child will think they have a "right to privacy" and that it's worth dying for, but they will have no clue to what this means:

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The "right to privacy" is a diluted positively asserted thing which can and does allow unreasonable searches without warrent specified by the much more powerful limit on government action above.

"Daddy, is it true you used to have the right to see the evidence against you and defend against it?"

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Your child won't know what a Grand Jury is and due process of law has already been perverted so no such thing is needed. The secret court says you are a terrorist, knowing how they know would alowy you to hurt more people off to jail you go.

What's all this fuss over anyway? We stared at the Soviets and global destruction for 50 years without becoming a police state. China is still around. Now, becase some jackass in Afganistan manages to kill a few thousand people we panic?

What do we think we are going to stop? Terrorists WILL get their hands on nukes, they will take out cities and nothing can be done about it anymore than Israel can keep people from pipe bombing cafes. The world will go on.

The only thing we can assure is what kind of world that will be. We can become another slave state or we continue to offer hope to the world for a better tomorrow. If we get lazy and turn on each other not only will the terrorist have won, they will have been right.

They might also need shelter from the cold, but quartering in your house any old way is a violation of the third amendment to the Constitution:

"Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Your patriotism is admirable but it does not give you rights to other people's property.

The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.-- Ben Franklin

The Constitution of the United States does not contain any reference to the right to pursue happiness. The phrase is found in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, as found at the National Archive

I highly doubt Benjamin Franklin would have made this mistake, since he was one of the few instrumental in the creation of both documents.

For starters, since when was Government created to prevent Spam? If you're from the US, then we have an interesting document which describes very clearly what the purpose of Government is: to uphold and defend the rights of citizens. Government has enough trouble getting that right. When you look at some of the other little projects that Government has seen fit to adopt (War on Drugs / War on Poverty / Social Security / Empire Building / Etc.), you can't help but come to the conclusion that it's track record reads like a case study in ineptitude and failure.

That said, how would Government be the answer to a problem like spam?

If, for example, we got a bunch of groovy new anti-spam laws, all that would result would be still more backlog in the courts. Given the number of spammers in the world, and their diverse locations, how would such a thing be logistically possible? Aside from the jurisdictional issues that would surely arise, how many courts would be needed to hear these cases?

The Short Answer: It's not possible.

The solution to the problem must therefore fall into the realm of the technological.

The tools are being developed, or in some cases, they've already been developed. No doubt they will mature and improve. In the end, they will be far more effective than any solution that the government will be able to come up with, and that's just the way it is.

It's going to take some getting used to. Email is the Internet's killer app. People have become dependant upon it. People fear change.

It's getting to the point, however, that people will be willing to change the way they interact with email because they now spend so much of their time sifting through noise to get at the signal.

Whitelisting is going to happen... We can no longer afford to accept email from untrusted sources. The sooner we embrace it on a wider scale, the sooner we can all get back to work, and the less time we'll have to waste on these other half-measures.

Why not quote the 4th amendment? It's very clear about what circumstances are required for the government to invade your personal life:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Indeed, the bookstore records should be considered "papers" and protected, so this whole business of "knocking down stovepipes" between government and private databases is FUCKING UNAMERICAN!

The language of the constitution is so clear and the intentions are so obvious, that it is equally obvious that it has been broken. You have the right to assemble, to say, pray, and publish what you will. You have the right to bear arms. You will not be put upon by the military. The government can't harrass you without real evidence you are a criminal. The court system will not be used to abuse you. You will have a jury if you are sued. Bail will not be used instead of a conviction. You will not be abused in jail. All of these things have been violated recently with perhaps the exception of the 3rd. I'm not aware of any involuntary quartering of troops, unless eminent domain aquisitions for military bases are considered.

Where's the line about taxation without
representation in the constitution? Can't find it?
Guess what, it's not there.

Nope - but it is in the declaration of independance ("For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent") - which is why the constitution was written in the first place. Otherwise we'd just be following the laws passed by King George/Parliament to this day...

Remember, the constitution exists to server the citezenry - not the opposite. Still, the constitution does an excellent job at this.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...

Uh - last time I checked we weren't talking about an act of Congress - which of course would be taxation WITH representation. We were talking about a tax imposed upon somebody by a legislative body in another state. The only Congress representative of all US citizens is the Federal Congress.

In any case, I have no objection to some state taxing its own citizens, but if I purchase something from outside my state from a company which exists solely outside my state, the constitution prohibits either state from regulating the transaction (although the Federal government can). There are two purposes for this rule:

1. There aren't 50 different standards for doing business on the national scale - which would be wasteful.

2. So that states cannot exercise power over the federal government except as granted by the constitution (such as by appointing senators (originally) or by ratifying ammendments). If a state could tax interstate commerce at will, it could exert quite a bit of control on the government. Suppose the army had to pay a tax on every bullet shipped across state lines? Or suppose the post office had to pay a tax on every letter mailed, but a local statewide delivery service did not?

You contradict yourself. The quotation just says "Creator", not "divine creator". It is arguable that evolution of free will, memory, and speech (not necessarily in that order) created emotional dependencies and then humanity.

In fact, your argument is entirely useless - the phrase you refer to is part of the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution, essentially a Declaration of War with no other legal implications. What is important from the constitution (see the same link) is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The main body deals with the mechanics of the government, and the Bill of Rights was introduced to establish restrictions against the very behaviors that founded the states' uprising in the first place, thus securing the "Blessings of Libery."

In other words, we are not guaranteed rights by a "divine" creator, we have them because the founding fathers delineated them. Though if we don't watch King George and his corporate buddies, we may yet lose them.

In other words, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

During WWII, the United States Office of Price Administration printed a great deal of propaganda meant to encourage the American public to support the war effort by conserving resources. Much of this propaganda centers on the idea that even the smallest failure (not carpooling, for example) directly helps the enemy.

This poster, created in 1943 by Weimer Pursell, depicts a well-to-do man riding in his 1940s convertible alone, save for a ghostly visage of Hitler riding next to him. The text, "When you ride ALONE you ride with Hitler!" is emblazoned above him, while below reads, "Join a Car-Sharing Club TODAY!" The effect today, in peacetime, is rather amusing.

An image of the poster can be found at:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/powers_of_per suasion/use_it_up/images_html/ride_with_hitler.htm l

"The electronic comments you submit directly through the Regulations.gov website are temporarily maintained by EPA before being forwarded once per day to the proper agency. The agency receiving your comment is considered the official custodian of the comment. Your comment will not be considered until it has been properly received by that agency in accordance with the requirements described in the Federal Register notice. Users who want to verify that an agency has received their comment are urged to check directly with that agency."

"The electronic comments you submit directly through the Regulations.gov website are temporarily maintained by EPA before being forwarded once per day to the proper agency. The agency receiving your comment is considered the official custodian of the comment. Your comment will not be considered until it has been properly received by that agency in accordance with the requirements described in the Federal Register notice. Users who want to verify that an agency has received their comment are urged to check directly with that agency."

While it is true that rumors are not researched facts, we could go on a whole tangent about how much research into an article constitutes it being news.

However, when something is heard second hand it is generally harder to determine truth, and this is in fact more damaging to due process then the rumor itself. If something is revealed in an early phase of a pre-trial that is later dismissed, it could end up on the 'rumor' site and later repeated. Any person having heard this would then be 'tainted' (from a certain point of view).

The battle between "the public's right to know" vs. "due process" probably dates back to the first days they both existed together. Or, in US terms, there is always a battle between the mentioned first amendment ("...no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...") vs. the sixth ("...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..."). {Full Bill of Rights

Note that the trial should be public BUT impartial. One of the main ways of guaranteeing impartiality is ignorance, and that is probably what the judge is hoping to accomplish, though for presumably Canadian legal equivalents.

The original post looks at the new solid fuel more from an environmental standpoint. In that respect, reusable boosters with an environmentally friendly fuel are good because you're not throwing away all that shell material on each launch. Also, my point was that solid rockets are easier to operate and maintain than liquid-fuelled ones, and making them less environmentally noxious is a Good Thing. They have different applications, and I imagine that both technologies will have a place as long as we're putting stuff is space by pushing reaction mass around. Lastly, I certainly don't dispute that the Shuttle is costly to operate.

At the begining of the Shuttle program Nasa did everything that they could do make sure that the Saturn V's would never be built again, they destroyed all of the blueprints and attempted to destroy all of the equipment used to make them.

This is a popular urban legend. The Saturn V blueprints still exist stored on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Rocketdyne still has significant documentation describing the F-1 (first stage) and J-2 (second and third stage) engines. The national archives also contain significant documentation on almost all NASA projects--including Saturn V. Although much of the equipment used to build Saturn has been lost or dismantled, it's not really surprising--the last Saturn V flight was what, nearly thirty years ago? Do we expect IBM to still have the hardware on hand to build an S/370 machine whenever we want one? Yes, the launch facilities for the Saturn V were dismantled or repurposed. NASA had to launch the Shuttle from somewhere, and the Saturn V program was coming to a close.

For what it's worth, I agree with you on the ISS. It would make more sense to update the Saturn V design--use modern materials where appropriate, and certainly new avionics--to do heavy lifting for the ISS. Unfortunately, such an option seems politically untenable at the moment, and there really aren't any other major projects happening right now that demand such lift capacity. (A Mars mission would be neat--but who's going to fund it?)

Sue your teachers.

There is, at its heart, no difference between philosophy and politics.

A government which infringes on basic human rights loses its legitimacy. Ergo the founding of our republic. Need I refer you to the source material?

You are saying that there is no arguing with whatever is written in whatever document is held to be the law of the land. However, our history tells us otherwise. Common sense, and a shared sense of basic principles overrides any governmental decree.

You may claim this means moral relativism, or leads to anarchy, but yet I am right, and it has not. Rather, it led to the founding of our country. The principles and mechanisms by which such basic priority operates are fluid and unreliable, but the world is not a CPU.

I'll repeat what Malor said, because it's absolutely correct, and understanding its meaning in the very core of your being is essential to your dignity as a human being. "[basic] freedoms ARE NOT GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT."

I'll reiterate my earlier point, because I can already hear the pedants clawing at their cages. This does not mean moral relativism. Just merely that we are never "bound" in any legal sense by a "government" which infringes on basic human rights which have been held, across most of earth's cultures, to be fundamental and universal. If you want to pretend there is no agreement on what a human right is, don't waste our time, or pretend it matters that there is no absolute agreement. Take a look at, for instance, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you're confused.

Damnit, here's the link to the preamble.

Jurisdiciton: anything abroad that affects Americans is within U.S. jurisdiction. The primary problem is enforcement, but many gov'ts do want to help, hoping for friendship or aid. Even the Chinese are reportedly beginning to cooperate against couterfeiters -- I'd rather have the U.S. after me than those thugs.

An American pulling the strings of an offshore operation would be fully liable. So would any American assets, fund transfers, or any other domestic presence.

Re Nigerian, multiple routes are being pursued by entities from the Dept. of State to the Secret Service. It's not so much the emails and the millions lost and 17+ people killed in Nigeria over this. The Nigerian authorities are cooperating, to the degree that helps... (news)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How simple can it get? If you don't have reasonable cause to search my house and can't get a warrent for that, you don't have grounds to dig through my trash, so piss off. When I put my trash out, I expect it to go to a sanitary landfill.

Now a private individual digging through my trash is a different matter which indeed may lead to a reasonable seach warrent. The lines are corssed, however, when public servants are the violators. Also, because a trash can on the street is NOT really under my control, "evidence" found there is not realy useful for much. Sworn testomony by neighbors to illegal activity is a much more useful thing than finding something in a trash can that anyone could have put there.

I want the police to be able to catch the bag guys just as much as you do, but I don't want innocent people suffering and I don't want to live in fear my house will be searched unreasonably. I don't like the idea that someone with a grudge could drop drugs and kiddie porn into my trashcan and get my house raided. Think about it for a while and you will realize that the only way to put the bad guys away is to catch them and pove they done what they did beyond a reasonable doubt. Digs in trashcans are a cheap and useless trick that offer nothing but abuse for all of us good guys.

Where does it say that?

implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times.

Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth. Further, you will tell all of the truth. Thus, it is opposed not only to not telling the truth, but also to interweaving in non-truths or leaving out some details.

And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.

...and ignore the ideas of the prosecutor and defender, and more importantly, the law. Say, for example, the case was bigamy. Something perfectly all-right in the Bible, yet forbidden by US law. Would you be able to weigh the facts with equal seriousness? Or, better yet, say the person did something perfectly all-right in US law, but directly opposed to Quaker beliefs, would you still be able to be impartial?

And even if you would be able to judge impartially and fairly within the framework of US laws, and completely disregard your own beliefs, would you put up a greater mental fight to the prosecutors suggestions, believing only that you should make inferences? The prosecutor has spent much time thinking about the case, much more than the jury member. That can leave the prosecutor to think that if some self-righteous person comes along who thinks he should make his own "impartial" inferences, that he (the prosecutor) would be better off without him. Ditto for the defender. And, you are probably correct here, I am just imagining what the two lawyers would think.

On another note, to support your affirmations. The constitution says (Article 2, Section 1, final paragraph) that the president must "solemnly swear (or affirm)". Apparently, the framers took your concern well.

But it was not every person. It was every able-bodied male. So does that mean that a state has a legal right to prevent women from owning guns? Sounds that way if we want to be strict constructionists.

Soundex, which uses the way words sound rather than the way they are spelled, has been widely used by the government and genealogy researchers for the past 60 years. This isn't exactly "new" technology.

Why are more and more /. articles starting to sound like corporate press releases?

Selective reading, my friend? There's plenty of US, DMCA, Congress-bashing all of the time. Look at nearly every Slashback in recent memory...

Actually, the only reason that China gets so much bashing is that, well, inside of China you don't get to bash them. In America (and Europe, and many if not most other places), we get to bash our government in every medium, as often as we're willing to bother. Granted, it gets old eventually, so we tend to concentrate on something more important to us personally. Like which Willow is better :)

We all know the USA is not perfect so what gives us the right to Bash China as if we are better or something?

Our government doesn't do what China's does. It doesn't censor directly; it doesn't ban religions (even pseudo-religions); it does allow criticism and free political speech.

And when someone criticises the US, our government doesn't throw a hissy fit. You haven't noticed us breaking diplomatic relations or trade ties with Germany, now, have you? And you won't; our goverment disagrees with Germany's government (hell, it disagrees with me too!), but that isn't going to interfere with business as usual. And note, the US criticizes Germany's stance on declaring Scientology a cult rather than a religion, so such disagreements are certainly not new nor interesting...

As citizens and residents in the US, we have the right (check the First Amendment here) to whinge about not only our government, but our neighbors and city councilmen and international conglomerates and the French... and yes, the government of the PRC. Get used to it, bucko, it's a big world out here :)

Ok I understand us Bashing the taliban, but China?

China does some very nasty things; to wit:

• imprison people without allowing them to defend themselves (i.e., presumption of guilt)
• censor political speech
• declares activities that the rest of the planet considers to be individual rights to be crimes (e.g., practice of religion such as Falung Gong, viewing of websites that criticize the policies of the Chinese Government, interactions with countries like Taiwan, immigration, yadda, yadda, yadda)
• Throws a fit whenever someone calls them to task for their activies, be it a government or a lowly foreign individual.

Anyone notice this co-incidence before? http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/ zimmermann_telegram/zimmermann_telegram.html

You're the first!

Anyone notice this co-incidence before?

http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/ zimmermann_telegram/zimmermann_telegram.html

Well, here on my planet Earth, the Constitution of the United States doesn't mention the "pursuit of happiness." That is in the Declaration of Independence, which last I heard was not incorporated into the Constitution.

John Weglian, chief of the special units division of the prosecutor's office, offers no apologies for Buckeye's unusually harsh treatment of the uncappers. "Cyber crime is potentially very damaging to society. We are taking a firm position on that type of criminal activity. We hope these cases will have a deterrent value, given the cost factors for the defendants in successful prosecutions."

The cable operators claim a loss of $11,000 for each of the 23 offenders and absurdity at best as the operators had the power to kill service at anytime, if indeed such losses were occuring. The uncpping was detected and the ISP could have terminated the contract with the individuals in question and fined them the cost of the modified equipment.

Now why is this a bother to Orwell and the authors of the US Constitution? Because it is a great step towards the end of free publishing in the US and towards the thought control of 1984. Violating a "service contract" with a monopoly ISP has been equated with serious law breaking. The same service contract includes prohibitions on running "servers" or electronic publications. Prohibiting electronic publications on a monopoly service ammounts to denial of first amendment rights to free speach. The internet is a public place, built largely from public networks on public land and supported by monopoly structures. The implication is that US citizens in the future will be felons if they attempt to express themselves in the electronic commons by runing their own news servers, email, or web servers.

Some people can't stand any competition, but the Founding Fathers knew that that's what a free press is all about. These services are against the wishes of their monopoly ISP wich also happens to be the monopoly telco or carrier of CableTV and all other significant electronic publications in the area. From the publisher's perspective, this is a nice step towards criminalizing competing with them. Not being able to run a free press is something the Founding Fathers would not find funny at all. The first amendment to the constitution puts free speach and press in the same class as religion and free assembly - inviolate. They also debated extensivly on the evils of exclusive franchise that copyright grants and how to balance that with the good that it can do to promote the useful arts - 14 years only, thank you. They could never have imagined a world of only one large press organization, AP, five music publishers, three broadcast networks and the technological steps those entrenched intersts would take to preserve and extend their power.

Orwell precicted such control through technology and it's ultimate results. These "untaper" federal cases combined with Paladium, are a great step towards 1984. Paladium, with its concept of "trusted computing" will assure that personal computers will spy on their owners, who can only use them to recieve official propaganda. Orwell saw it comming.

The stage has been well set by the large publishers and you are discredited. They have issued a long string of kiddie porn arrests and news storries about the demise of music publishers. These storries have convinced the public that the free internet is responsible for the demise of popular music and an increase in child molestation. "Hackers" have been equated with child molesters, warez losers and other "pirates" and parisites. this wired story does a good job of demolishing the connection between child molestation and the internet, but the readership of Wired is nothing compared to MSNBC/Time-Warner/AOL/McDonalds/AP/Conglomoram/GE. Your neighbors may not pitty you when the FBI coyly knocks on your door. "Why esle would anyone want to have all that bandwith or run a server?" a clueless populance will ask. You have been painted as some kind of pervert that treatens the great public circus, home, harth and the whole "entertainment ifrastruture" without which the US economy would obviously colapse.

I invite one and all to see exactly what I want to do with my internet connection. It's simple, I want to share my life with relatives that live in different states and my interests with anyone who cares. There's nothing Earth shattering here, not even bad music.

On December 1st, my modest site will go black when my contract with Cox Cable expires. The nose has tightened slowly, every six months brought some new loss of service and increase in costs, and it is now intollerable. I'm not willing to pay $75/month to simply surf the great corporate billboard nor am I willing to give money to a company with the same contract terms and philosophy as Buckeye.

Don't worry, I'll keep posting here on Slashdot. Now you know who twitter is.

If the Founders felt the common man or woman was too stupid to pick the President, they wouldn't have permitted a popular vote at all.

You are making a couple of false assumptions. First, women were obviously not a factor in the Founders decision making process, see the 19th amendment, ratified on August 26, 1920. Women haven't been able to vote for even half of U.S. history yet.

Second, you assume that the Founders had absolute control over the creation of the Constitution and could do whatever they wanted to do and that they were of one mind. In fact, they considered "[a] number of proposals, including direct election by the people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically expedient." [see the national archives]. Note: The popular vote did not then nor does it now determine who becomes president of the U.S. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point is of even including the President on ballots, since it has no bearing on who becomes President. Perhaps it is a kind of opinion polling for the electoral college. Or if you are of a more cynical mind-set, it's a component of the framework of Necessary Illusions that help us believe that we live in a democracy and have some voice in it. Those in power need to keep the hoi polloi docile, don't they?

What I find especially difficult to understand is the incapacity to differenciate between a republic and democracy - despite the fact that the Constitution itself explicitly states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Yet, everyone seems to believe the U.S. is a democratic system and that the U.S. is somehow keeping the world safe for democracy. That smell kosher to you?

One other thought, there is a thesis out there that suggests that the Constitutional Convention had bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether the voting system was fair for the President. You could probably make analogous comments about our efforts in helping the world become more "democratic". Maybe it is time to relook at voting and our system a bit more objectively and with a critical eye. Don't you think?

If the Founders felt the common man or woman was too stupid to pick the President, they wouldn't have permitted a popular vote at all.

You are making a couple of false assumptions. First, women were obviously not a factor in the Founders decision making process, see the 19th amendment, ratified on August 26, 1920. Women haven't been able to vote for even half of U.S. history yet.

Second, you assume that the Founders had absolute control over the creation of the Constitution and could do whatever they wanted to do and that they were of one mind. In fact, they considered "[a] number of proposals, including direct election by the people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically expedient." [see the national archives]. Note: The popular vote did not then nor does it now determine who becomes president of the U.S. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point is of even including the President on ballots, since it has no bearing on who becomes President. Perhaps it is a kind of opinion polling for the electoral college. Or if you are of a more cynical mind-set, it's a component of the framework of Necessary Illusions that help us believe that we live in a democracy and have some voice in it. Those in power need to keep the hoi polloi docile, don't they?

What I find especially difficult to understand is the incapacity to differenciate between a republic and democracy - despite the fact that the Constitution itself explicitly states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Yet, everyone seems to believe the U.S. is a democratic system and that the U.S. is somehow keeping the world safe for democracy. That smell kosher to you?

One other thought, there is a thesis out there that suggests that the Constitutional Convention had bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether the voting system was fair for the President. You could probably make analogous comments about our efforts in helping the world become more "democratic". Maybe it is time to relook at voting and our system a bit more objectively and with a critical eye. Don't you think?

I seem to remember a line that if the government becomes tyrannical, it is our responsibility to "throw it off."

Actually, the line you're thinking of is from the Declaration of Independence. It says, in essence, that if a government becomes corrupt, it is the duty of the citizenry to abolish it.

Think about it. If we Yanks did things by popular vote and majority rule, why would smaller states even bother with the Union. You'd have states seceding left and right. You may not like the outcome, but you've gotta love the system. It worked.

Check out Federalist Papers #39 and #68. The fruits of this debate from over two hundred years ago can be found in the text of our Constitution's Twelfth Amendment.

Still wanna gripe? Consider the fallibility of majority rule. 60% of adults surveyed, agreed or strongly agreed that some people possess extrasensory powers. Does that instantly prove that ESP, telekinesis, and clairvoyance are in fact real? Get a load of this one: 60% of adults surveyed support specific requirements that broadcasters air an hour of educational programming -- or more -- for children each day. They think it should be "required."

There's more to this argument, but a rational observer or participant of the political process should volunteer that the American republic with its electoral college is the best system of government the world over.

As for being the worst leader in our nation's history, I can think of a few others without even thinking of this clown.

There are no such things as "rights." If there were, they wouldn't need to be stated or enforced. Rights are something that can't be taken away by someone else.

That's an argument over which words to use ("rights" or "privileges"), rather than their meaning (our degree of freedom to speak, etc).

The meanings of Jefferson (in the Declaration of Independence) and Utah Phillips (in this quote) are, to me:

1) You always have the right, whether or not someone stops you from excercising it. Do people with advanced ALS still have the right to speak? Does Stephen Hawking suddenly gain it when he turns on his speech synthesiser? Similarly, if someone gags you, you retain your right even if you lose the physical ability. That's what I think Jefferson means by inalienable.

2) For someone to repress this freedom, the repressed must acquiesce. It's not strictly true -- the repressor could lock you up and procede to ignore you -- but practically it works. A repressor can tell you not to speak and not to practice your religion. If you acquiesce, then you indeed give away that freedom. If you continue to speak or to practice, then you are still free. Millions of peaceful dissidents have excercised their rights despite the legal authorities The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free

The problem is that so few resist, especially on others' behalf. We (myself included) all talk, but why aren't we writing our elected representatives and meeting with them. Why aren't we involved in organized politics? We can do it perfectly legally, at little risk or cost to ourselves. No risk of jail, no risk of life and limb, but we're all reading Slashdot instead.

Martin Luther King, and many others in his position, complained that the complacent good-willed multitudes (you and me) are more at fault than the ill-willed few. We can always stop it if we act. He wrote, while in jail for resisting and excercising his freedoms,

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate ... Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

OK, I'll bite... From FirstGov:

The executive branch is responsible for executing and enforcing the laws of the land. The power of the executive branch is vested in the President.

More specifically, from The Consitution, we have Article II, Sections 1-4 describing the Executive Branch... Summed up:

Article II, Section 1: We have a president and here is how he's elected...

Article II, Section 2: He commands the military, militias, makes treaties, appoints ambassadors, judges, and officers of the executive branch.

Article II, Section 3: He needs to inform congress of the state of the union.

Article II, Section 4: He can be impeached for...

So, we can see that there is really no basis in law for why the Executive branch should be involved in the allocation of funding to faith-based organizations anyway. It has nothing to do with the enforcement of law, international affairs, military actions, etc.

This administration, perhaps more than many recently, has gotten into many things it should not.

Funny, the Constitution says (Art. I, Sect. 8)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Thomas Jefferson thought patents should be just for machines, but he was not the king of the U.S., and others thought differently. The Patent Act of 1793 states that the inventor of

any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement thereof

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Again, not just machines, but processes were elegible according to the letter of the law to be patented. Algorithms and business plans seem to me to be processes and hence, are not automatically excluded from the wording of the historical patent laws.