Slashdot Mirror

As long as it doesn't say they are NOT allowed to, then if the PEOPLE abide by it, they have the power.

No. Powers of the federal government are strictly limited to those given in the Constitution. "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." It's right there in Amendment X.

Are you one of those people who thinks no rights exist except those specified in the Constitution?

No. Rights of citizens are not limited to those given in the Constitution. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It's right there in Amendment IX.

Really, read the damn thing. It's not hard.

That one sucks, it isn't worth the paper it is written on. Why? Article 29 section 3 of it reads: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." which basically says the UN can violate them at will. It is also full of a lot of non-rights such as "Everyone has the right to ... protection against unemployment." (23.1) which are basically along the lines of "and everybody gets a free pony!" These rights are better for governments to follow, applied to everyone.

You don't need support from your operating system to get high granularity timers if you're running on a modern x86 system.

Pentium High Performance Timers

I admit to not reading the entire thread, but it seems to me that the basic point is being entirely missed: What is the federal government doing offering to spend 400 million dollars on a research project at a university. This is really my tax dollars at work? I'm appalled (though to be honest not surprised). This is why we have debt, taxes, and this is how the constitution gets trampled every day. Article I, Section 8 provides a list of the powers of the congress, and the 10th Amendment closes the door on anything else. The racism, nationalism, terrorism, blah blah blah issue would be not terribly relevant if the federal government stuck to its own business.

I admit to not reading the entire thread, but it seems to me that the basic point is being entirely missed: What is the federal government doing offering to spend 400 million dollars on a research project at a university. This is really my tax dollars at work? I'm appalled (though to be honest not surprised). This is why we have debt, taxes, and this is how the constitution gets trampled every day. Article I, Section 8 provides a list of the powers of the congress, and the 10th Amendment closes the door on anything else. The racism, nationalism, terrorism, blah blah blah issue would be not terribly relevant if the federal government stuck to its own business.

My wife selected a few links from her homeschooling bookmarks, where you can find lots of free material:

Homeschool Central - Study Resources
TeacherFeatures.com
Homeschool Support on the Internet
HomeworkCentral.com - Lesson Plans by Subject
NGA: Teaching Resources: Loan Programs
Novel Study Guides for the Classroom Teacher
Outline Maps
100 Top Map Sites
Unit Studies (huge site!)
Lesson Plans & Teacher Helps
Newton's Apple
MathWork -- Math worksheets you can create in your browser
S.C.O.R.E.
homeschooling.about.com
A to Z Home's Cool - Homeschooling Web Site
Jon's Homeschool Resource Page

Possible, but not probable...

I'm close to someone involved in low level local politics... What you'll find is that news such as this is about 40% fiction (They call it creative writing, or some such in journalism schools.)

Most news agences embelish the truth, and often resort to such common argument falacies as taking quotes out of context as well as employing sensationalism and plain old fiction.

In general, stories have seeds of truth; some are just larger seeds than others... Remember that the best lies are those based on reality.

Side quote: "The US media is unique not in the ability to provide an un-tainted viewpoint; Rather, it is unique in it's ability to convince the american population that it is without bias."

This is the first time I've seen an article on /., as opposed to comments on one written somewhere else.

It's against Slashdot's norm -- a news site -- but I think it makes for a great idea. It lets me read a single source for both tech news and a little bleeding-edge knowledge. Although I dislike the karma whore article posting phenomenon, I love reading those articles inline.

Truth be told, this also helps flesh out a university education. Although I learned a lot in my specialist degree, I became a well-rounded and knowledgable geek only through outside interests: clicking on Slashdot links, messing with Linux, etc. Until now, I didn't think about "XML Namespaces and how they affect XPath and XSLT," but now I can discuss it with a clue.

Keep it up guys -- this improves the value of Slashdot immensely. At the very least, give this concept a section of its own (articles.slashdot.org?) with links from the main page.

P.S: Why not post some articles on argument fallacies and how to answer lame questions yourself.

bearing arms is not a human right

as to that being an American right, even that is a stretch. The American Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment - "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

You might wish it meant otherwise, but that seems pretty clearly aimed at the state armed forces, not civilians. Specifically a well-regulated armed force.

bearing arms is not a human right

as to that being an American right, even that is a stretch. The American Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment - "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

You might wish it meant otherwise, but that seems pretty clearly aimed at the state armed forces, not civilians. Specifically a well-regulated armed force.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me as a brit that the natural reading of the second amendment is that the "people keeping and bearing arms" should also be "a well regulated militia". Now that sounds more like the Swiss model than every Tom, Dick and Harry being able to walk into their nearest Wal-Mart and buy a semi-automatic assault rifle.

I do wonder sometimes how many Americans have actually read their constitution.

The first place you should look for the purpose of patents and copyrights (at least wrt U.S. versions thereof) would be Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, where it says

"The Congress shall have power ... [t]o 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"

Emphasis mine. To the authors and inventors, not to the publishing companies and financiers. It is my personal opinion that these rights ought to be non-transferable. They should be allowed to be assigned via contract, but not transferred from the individuals or enumerated and specified group of individuals to whom the right originally applied. If I work for a corporation (or University,) I and possibly an enumerated and specified group of people from the company should be assigned exclusive rights (licensed back to the company via contract) and exclusivity should expire after some fixed time not to exceed the lifetimes of the persons who hold said rights.

-Craig

--

I am not a lawyer, but only those who are arrested have a "right to remain silent". Anybody can be called into court as a witness to testify and remaining silent would fall under the catch-all of contempt of court.

Unless it may incriminate you, in which case you have the right to remain silent. The text is here. The way it all ends up working is basically as follows:

• No one can force you to say anything outside a court.
• If something MAY incriminate you, you may remain silent, except when you're in the military, and even then it has to be in a time of war or "public danger". You do not have to bear witness against yourself.
• This all falls apart in front of a Grand Jury, when your constitutional rights don't mean squat anyway. There's an exception to any rule.

In other words, if they call you to the stand, and say "Did you write this book" or "Did you bomb this building" or "Did you fuck this sheep", you can plead the Fifth. In the absence of any evidence against you (Is an original manuscript in your house? Do you have residue in your bathtub from making the bomb? Is the sheep really really happy to see you?) then if justice is carried, you should be found innocent.

It is perfectly within the rights of the state of Iowa to pass laws that affect people (and companies) within its jurisdiction. For example, say that I purchased a license for a faulty program, and I went to an Iowa court to sue the company that authored the program. In this case it's the business of no other state but Iowa.

Were the company to sue me under the terms of the license, I could tell the court (in whatever state) that I'm a citizen of Iowa, the contract was agreed to in the state of Iowa and is subject to its laws, and the law in Iowa is yadda yadda yadda. The case could then be appealed to a Federal court (as they have jurisdiction over "controversies...between citizens of different states"). In that case, the court would merely be balancing the rights of the state of Iowa versus the other state.

Regarding Congress and interstate commerce, this is something that has been strictly a state issue (as most contract disputes are). If the federal government would get involved at all, it would be the courts that would get involved (as mentioned earlier).

Specifically it violates the Commerce Clause.

A transaction between parties in 2 states is by definition commerce and therefore falls squarely in the jurisdiction of Congress. For more on this, search for "Commerce" in this article on tactics against spam.

Cheers,
Ben

PS IANAL and all that.

a democracy has to preserve at least some capacity for thought in its citizens (elections and all).

Er, you mean that democracies only function to your spec if there is "some capacity for thought in its citizens". Sure, I'd like a smart, issue-oriented electorate, too. But fact is, in a world in which power is disposed of by popular vote, it's obviously in a candidate's best interest (as far as getting elected goes) to keep the populace ignorent and uncritical -- if he can somehow manage it. School boards in conjunction with mandatory schooling provide precisely that power.

(There was a fascinating article about 12 years ago in a mainstream mag called "Why Can't Johnny Think?" which outlined exactly why it's in your average schoolboards members' personal self-interest to keep the electorate docile, ignorent and uninterested.)

You may have noticed there are an awful lot of /.ers who complain about the American electorate. Every time a YRO article hits the main page, you can expect laments about how the general public doesn't see what all the fuss is about as their rights are eroded. Now, maybe you disagree with that sentiment. Perhaps you think the American people are an involved, interested, vigilent electorate passionately participating in the Great Experiment of democracy. OK, then we would have to agree to disagree. But if you do concede that not all is well in the American electorate, I would like to propose an alternate explanation.

I say "alternate" because the standard /. assumption is that the populace is stupid or lazy. My proposal is that they have had been indoctrinated.

Again, please explain. While I have seen more than my share of corruption in individual school administrations, I don't see where the corruption is in the system itself.

Hello? We were discussing WAVE? The product that school administrators argue they need to keep their schools safe?

But of course, that's the tip of the iceberg....

When schools become used as a political tool, it is a Bad Thing. But I'd like to see your evidence that school has become a propaganda tool.

L ies My Teacher Told Me (I'm not suggesting giving amazon.com money, but if you check out the "also boughts" on the bottom of the page you'll get a bunch of books focusing on other academic areas besides US history.) The book is an examination of, among other disturbing things, how twelve of the most popular US history texts used in HS classes were edited to make certain groups in the US look less bad. For example, the Deep South states insisted on a more flattering (of them) depiction of the Reconstruction (following the Civil War.) Similarly, famous people who had (now) unpopular political or religious positions are depicted without reference to, for instance, being communists or deists or supporters of the KKK.

The State has been editing your text books. Get used to the idea.

And what else is the bid to have Oklahoma schools teach creationism but an attempt at state sponsored propaganda? The people who have seized the reins there have an agenda for how they'd like people to think. Don't kid yourself that it's purely a love of Christianity which moves those people. They know that if everyone grows up thinking Christianity is more valid than other religions (which don't get their origin myths put in science text books) and, heck, just as valid as science, and Christianity (as practiced widely) teaches that Christians are better than unbelievers, Christianity becomes a virtuous trait in a candidate -- as has already happened (the Boston Globe had a nice article on it if you hadn't figured it out for yourself). Promulgating Christianity in schools is a good way to make sure eventually only Christians are elected to office.

Oh, that's right, you don't provide any.

Actually, I think I just did. Kindly remove your foot from your throat.

Far better to have a child taught by a trained professional than by someone who, in the end, may well not know much more than the student.

Really? Who'd you learn that from, a trained professional?

There are a growing number of people who have come to the conclusion mass-produced education is of necessarily inferior quality, completely aside from any liberties your government is taking with the content.

But, hey, this is other people. You went to (or are going through) ~12 years of schooling in the US, right? Think for yourself. Look back on your own experience and ask "Hey, did I learn a lot? How does it compare to what I learned on my own? How does it compare to what I learned from other people?" Ask yourself "Did I like being in school? Did it engage my intellect and introduce me to new things? Or did I sit either bored or terrified in most of my classes wishing I could be somewhere else, doing somewhere else?"

If you can answer, "Heck, yes, school was great; I'd go back in a heartbeat; I never felt so intellectually awake; I learned so much!" then more power to you.

If you can't, I ask that you listen to what I have to say with an open mind. If nothing else listen to this:

What they did to you was wrong. They had no right. It could have been different. It could have been better. Having to spend your childhood in a state-run or state-authorized institution being told the state's version of reality was wrong.

Correct. Now, how do you propose to fix the economy such that this is not so?

I don't. We abolished slavery even though it savaged the economy. This is a matter of civil right, of human rights. The fact that fixing the problem would be bad for business is hardly an excuse for business as usual. Efficacy is never a justification for the abrogation of liberty.

Indeed it has. Mainly because it's a hell of a lot safer than our schools at the moment.

I suggest you go speak with some more homeschoolers before speaking for them. Start with a subscription to Growing Without Schooling, or perhaps attend their conference.

But that's a problem with the schools, not the system.

When, precisely then, does a problem with schools become a problem with the system?

But to destroy the idea of state-mandated schooling in whatever form?

Precisely.

That will destroy us more surely than the current system will.

What evidence do you have for that? Or is that just "what everyone knows"?

Can you think of any forces in your life which would benefit by your believing that uncritically?

I suppose it merits pointing out that the nations which are starting to catch up to our lead and even pull ahead all run mandatory schooling programs, most even more restrictive and "fascist" than the ones you find in the U.S.

Oh, don't worry. In three generations (~90years) they'll be in exactly the same boat as we are now.
----------------------------------------------

But there are downsides. As a on-site employee or contractor, on-site is on-clock: If you're there, it's billable time, even if you're really reading Slashdot or conducting an flirtation via email. But when I (at least) am working at home, I feel I have to be scrupulously honest about billing time. I have a little bound record book that I log start and stop times in, in ink, so that I have something to show the IRS and/or customers if I'm ever challenged. This isn't a very big deal - but it's amazing how often the distractions mount up so that it takes 'till ten or eleven to log an eight hour workday!

And, as has been mentioned, kids and/or SO's can be a distraction. Most projects do involve an awful lot of Same Old Same Old that you can do even with a houseful of happy kids (or talk drifting over from other cubicles!) but there's always the fun stuff that does require concentration. My kids, at least, are awfully good about being quiet when I'm on the phone or in a tough part, but all-in-all I do really hate working in a corner of the living room, and wish I had my own office with a door I could close.

But the hands down biggest drawback is that people want you in their office, both to see that you're actually working and for the interaction. Insisting on telecommuting knocks out 90% (or even 99%) of the possible contracts, leaving you with the small stuff that someone thinks someone working alone can do in six months or less (anything bigger and Time To Market considerations start to urge them to throw more staff at it) and the relatively few customers who are willing to work with a telecommuter. That can lead to your having to take just about anything that comes along, which can be dull and (which is worse) which can lead to career stagnation.

In my case, this filtering coupled with the fact that there's not a huge demand for Delphi programmers to start with, leads to a really exaggerated boom-and-bust cycle. I don't have busy months and slow months; I have good and bad years, with year-on-year income ratios as high as eight. This is emotionally fatiguing ;-) and means that I have to be awfully conservative, fiscally - I'd be a lot wealthier right now if I hadn't had to keep so much of my net worth in cash during the '90's.

It's hard in general for a contractor to pick up a new speciality - people want to pay you to do what someone else has already paid you to do, not what you say you've learned on your own - and it's even harder when you add that telecommute filter. I keep thinking of bagging it, but so far at least, the pluses still outweigh the minuses. YMMV.

At first I thought, oh, that's OK. That still involves problem solving and working with constraints, yes?

But what constraints! Forget any notion of building Rodney Brooks-like robots: You get three sensor inputs. Even if you were willing to spring for lots of extra-cost sensors, and used some clever multiplexing schemes, you'd be hard pressed to build an insect that could even know whether its legs were up or down, forward or back.

And seemingly simple robots have a way of using up the parts that come in the standard set. Once you've built a track following robot, what do you do with it? You've used up both motors. Similarly, once you've built an arm that can raise/lower open/close its claw, you've used both motors, both touch sensors, and most of the gears and structural pieces.

I'm afraid that I lost interest pretty quickly.

(Putting aside for a moment the "This is worth a 100?!" question...)

Look. The problem of hyper-reactive teachers/school administrators is systemically inherent . If you think the problem is bad now, just wait! It will proceed to get a lot worse. There are no forces working to reduce how hyper-reactive teachers are. There are forces (teacher accountability, parental economics, political grandstanding, etc.) which drive this process, but the only faction which cares to object is the students themselves and maybe a few geeks.

So if you are a parent, and you object to your kids being treated like this, you have two choices:

1. Put up with it, and convince yourself that it's not all that bad.
2. Pull your kids from school. From all schools.

If you're a Conscientious (Schooling) Objector, you're in good company. Go read Teach Your Own by John Holt, contact Growing Without Schooling here, check out this portal for everything homeschooling. There's only several zillion resources for someone determined not to submit their kid to an institution they do not approve of.

Parents, stop whining about the system. If you don't like it, opt out.

P.S. If you think being schooled fscked with your head, and you've been working on getting over being institutionalized, there's an email list for people you. It's on OneList. Find it for yourself if you're interested.
----------------------------------------------