Slashdot Mirror

...Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....

All this Patriot Act stuff is just a Yale political science research project to determine which rights actually are inalienable.

So far, they're getting lots of good data; indeed, it may be that the Declaration of Independence needs to be reworded, with phrases such as "conditionally inalienable"; "all men, equally, are created"; "That for security, Men are institutionalized by Government", "deriving their just powers from the labors of the governed," and so on.

However, this research project doesn't extend that far. Its purpose is succinct and well defined -- the question of which rights are actually inalienable. Future research projects will test out other aspects of the Declaration

The change has been credited to Jefferson; but yes, it may have been changed during committee.

An image of the rough draft of the Declaration and a transcript can be found here.

It is the duty of any moral individual to seek to change that law, and to resist it in the meanwhile.

Ghandi disagreed. Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr disagreed. Rosa Parks disagreed. Various locales in Scandanavia disagreed while the Nazis were hanging out in town. Thomas Paine wasn't all that thrilled with the concept, either.

If Microsoft refuses to comply with Chinese laws concerning censorship, do you really think it will affect those laws?

Nope, but it would be the morally correct thing to do. But Bill Gates values money above all else. That's the American way.

And, in the meanwhile, Microsoft would almost certainly lose traction...traction which can later help in influencing laws when there's a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything on that front.

This is one of the dumber concepts ever posted on /. - that MS is secretly planning to effect social change in China. Ain't in the works - Bill doesn't value freedom or individual rights: if the RIAA/MPAA started to care about freedom and rights then Bill may give a rat's uvula but otherwise, never.

Microsoft can't do a damned thing about the Chinese government's oppression of free speech and they know it

They could always pay ~cough~ "fines", wink wink, to satisfy the officials... but they don't.

their next duty is to avoid doing harm to themselves, their employees, and their stockholders all in the name of futility.

Or they could pull out of the market. But that would cost MS too much money. MS is seeking money first - as corporations should do - but are helping prevent the spread of freedom. That's the choice MS made. It sucks and is wrong. Just admit it and don't try to justify Bill.

I highly encourage everyone to listen to a speech given by Richard Stallman on Software Patents.

I know RMS may not be too popular because of his stern disposition, but I find that he chooses his words very carefully and is very articulate. Note that he does reference "Society" quite often and many people mis-understand him because of this. To actually get where he is "coming from" you may want to read the first section of "Common Sense".

Being a foreigner, is quite interesting to see that Ben Franklin did knew what the future reserved:..
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04 .htm

> We are not some happy brotherhood of equal men.
No, we're neither equal nor happy (in general), but we have equal rights.

> The egalitarian fiction is nothing more than that, a fiction.
No, it's an ideal to strive for. I don't think I've ever seen it put better anywhere than here - http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/inde x.htm -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Of course you can argue about the Creator bit; that's fine. We're not equal - but we have the same rights. Whether you're lucky or unlucky in your choice of parents.

> When it comes to India, they certainly have the surplus population to spare.

The world has population to spare. Given your admirable public spirited attitude, you have been volunteered for elimination.

> We are not some happy brotherhood of equal men. The egalitarian fiction is nothing more than that, a fiction.
You just flunked the compassion test. Would you like to collect your official "I'm subhuman, shoot me!" badge or should I post it?

> Why is that? The world is filled with people who are human only in terms of their biology, but hardly live in any way we typically associate with humanity.
Blindly judging by your attitude and where you're posting: You are the exception, not what you would call 3rd world people. You forget how much the west has progressed in the last 150 years - your great-great-grandfather would feel more at home in a subsistence village than in your suburban home. Get some perspective - you are where you are because you are lucky; not because of your merit. People twice as smart as you starve to death every day. *

> Most of them would die anyway if it wasn't for the generosity and ingenuity of European peoples. Certainly, the level of suffering that exists in India didn't exist before the introduction of European technologies and civilizing elements.
So on the one hand the white race (sorry, European Peoples, that sounds much less racist) generously feeds India, on the other you're saying that our technology and "civilizing elements" cause all the suffering? I agree that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", but within two adjacent sentences it _is_ considered good form to agree with oneself ;)

On top of that, one would have to be spectacularly ignorant to believe that India was not civilized before Britain took it over. I'm sure it was just a slip of the keyboard in your case.

* Yes, I'm pretty sure I can back that up with statistics, but given that it's tedious and elementary I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader,

Well, first it helps to get the quote right. According to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/inde x.htm, which seems fairly authoritative, the relevant text is as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Based on what they show when you follow the "Congress's Draft" link, it appears as though your text is from an earlier version.

Anyway, the key difference that is relevant here is the deliberate and presumably careful use of the word "certain" to restrict the scope of rights--among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--that are deemed (explicitly and implicitly, and by their statement) unalienable.

In other words, in my opinion it is overreaching to assert that the Declaration of Independence declares all possible rights to be unalienable to all men, and so forth, as you have suggested.

Something to think about, I think.

Either you are part of the age of enlightenment or you are against enlightenment.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04 .htm Ben Franklin

At the time, he was working for a publisher which skews the meaning I was trying to make. However, he should have been free to directly write editorials. Interestingly,James Franklin (Ben's older brother) whom was the publisher, was the first to serve a jail sentance for publishing libel (which only meant - opinions unpopular with the government).

This is a decent site, with a lot of information:
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/courant/

We've been bent over here in the USA by our government and that big government dick is heading straight for our asses...sad part being that most people don't even see it coming or care

Franklin said in his autobiography that deism, though may be true, wasn't worth much. He was a deist in his youth, but by the time of the Constitutional Convention he was not. Only if you define 'deny divinity of Christ' as did not subscribe to any particualt denomination does Franklin (or most founders) fit. His autobio is avaliable on Guttenberg, it is worth the read.

Washington: To be a vestryman in that episcopal church, he signed a document stating that he accepted the Episcopal doctrine. If he didn't believe it, Washington of all people would not have signed it. That doesn't mean that he liked or agreed with the 'ostentatious display(s) of religious zeal' that others had. these quotes should put to rest any deistic ideas about washington. A deist doesn't call on God for aid, protection, or call him "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" etc...

Jefferson: He had decided that none of the current denominations were correct, and as such stripped christianity down to what could be proved (in his mind) In a way, he did not 'accept' the divinity of Christ, but it was more of a rejection of the current churches than anything. He at least believed Christ lived, and that his teachings were the best ever. To the christians of his time, and of our time, he was not a normal christian. On the other hand, I could pick and choose quotes from him that make him look totally christian, just like the link you gave made him look atheist. Neither are the truth.

The founders were not fundies like there are today, that much should be obvious. (and the fundies don't like it much either!) On the other side, most were not deists, at least not by the definitions given in your link. (and the anti-christians of today don't like this!) Both sides want the Founders to support their own agenda - The founders would have found both agenda's repulsive.

Touché - interesting point.

Doesn't that suggest, then, that it would be more proper to simply fix the broken visa system than to institute draconian and privacy-invading observation laws on every person already in your country?

And of course I'm ignoring for a second the whole argument about whether it's right to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety...

From a particular document that EVERYONE should read:

Don't forget that the US forefathers had a similar bout with terrorism known as the British a couple of hundred years ago. It's our responsibility to handle terrorism to secure our future.

The problem with the psuedo patriots is that they don't actually know what the rules are. They make things up to meet thier own ends. They put the flag on thier ass, and then run it through the washing machine. They put on their car, and leave it up in the rain. They have the flag on the towel they cum all over after maturbation. The dumb bastard wear the flag and then throw it on the ground. The flag burners have nothing on the flag abusers.

For those of you who do not know what the rules are, I provide this link how to respect the flag. Please read them and,for gods sake, next time you accuse someone of disrespect, consider the number of time you left a skid mark of period accident on the flag.

Certainly one can't claim that these people weren't willing to fight for their ideals. And they thought anonymous writing was a valid (useful / legal / legitimate) way to bring about democracy and political change.

I think your confusion lies with a misunderstanding of the basic tenets on which this country is founded. Let me make it very clear.

You are free.

As the Declaration of independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is in fact copyright that is not a "natural" right. It is an exclusive right granted by the Constitution. Your are given a temporary monopoly (a bad thing to the minds of the drafters of the constitution) on a work in order to halt other peoples natural right to know and disperse information. This gives some time for the creator to pursue his happiness, at the EXPENSE of everyone elses liberty. But it was deemed important enough to encourage innovation that it was included. Provided it was for limited terms.

As to your last comment. It is not the job of the Government to make you rich. Its only function (in theory) is to provide a free environment for its citizenry to live peacefully so that we have the OPPURTUNITY to pursue happiness. It is not a guarantee of happiness. Copyright in its original form provided this function.

Copyright as it exists now does nothing for innovation or the public good.

Walt Disney can no longer innovate. He can no longer create characters for your children to love and cherish. So why does Disney Inc. still have an exclusive right to his creation? How is Disney Inc making however much they actually make of Mickey Mouse going to enourage Walt Disney the man to create more?

Copyright does not exist so that you can create once and live well forever. While it is entirely possible for it to happen, that is not why it exists. If a creator makes a fortune off one idea and never creates again then copyright has failed in its purpose.

I want my natural right, which was endowed by my creator, back. I think you should want it back as well. I think all people should WANT their rights and to keep them. Governments and corporations are not people. They do not make society, they are only a function of it. The individual is paramount and his or her rights should be held above the rights of both government and corporation.

exgesis clique
'Education and religion are two things not regulated by supply and demand. The less of either the people have, the less they want. - [Charlotte Observer, 1897]'

First of all, what did Marx do besides invent communism? And communism isn't exactly the most successful political system invented, is it? Can you name one country that is actually governed according to Marx's principles? Socialist dictatorships don't count. By comparison with Franklin, Marx was an ivory-tower academic.

In addition to Franklin's political accomplishments, which go far beyond anything you describe, he was a scientist and an inventor. Two of Ben Franklin's inventions are still in use throughout the world, and another is still in use in parts of it. Can you name them?

Also, Franklin transformed science in the 18th century when he proved that lightning and static electricity were the same phenomenon. This discovery gave him fame comparable to Isaac Newton's in Europe during his lifetime.

We'll see how important Marx still appears 75 years from now, when his distance from the present is similar to Franklin's. You can see how relevant Franklin still is here and here.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington

It's hard to believe that men who did not believe that God gave revelation to men (according to your definition of deism), would write this in the document that they signed: " and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". If your definition is correct, to what would the "Laws of Nature's God" be referring to?

In fact, John Witherspoon, a delegate from New Jersey, was an ordained minister in the Church of Scotland. I think that would disqualify him as a Deist.

Many early settlers who came to the New World were seeking freedom from religion oppression; many of these groups were seperatists from the Church of England. Their frame of reference was The Act of Supremecy of 1534, which recognized the King of England as "the only supreme head of the Church of England". When these colonists formed their own goverment, they wanted to avoid the pitfalls of this union of church and state.

Regardless of their positions on organized religion, the value systems of the vast majority of colonists was unquestionably Christian. Most had not been exposed to Hinduism, or to the teachings of Muhammad. Yes, they were brilliant thinkers, men of reason and judgement, but they also came from a Christian society, and the system of government they architected reflects those basic values.

I recall reading somewhere that when the flag has become old and worn should be burnt on flag day.

The touching the ground issue is simply not true, however wearing it in itself is a big no no.

Full list of hanging, displaying, and disposal guidelines are here: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

For the lazy a few snippits:
Section 8d. reads, "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel."
My flag touched the ground. Do I need to destroy it?
No. You should, of course, try to avoid having the flag touch the ground. But if it does, you should correct the situation immediately. If the flag has been dirtied, you should clean it by hand with a mild soap solution and dry it well before returning it to use.
My flag is old and ready to be retired. What should I do?
Section 8k of the Flag Code (see below) states, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." We recommend that you contact your local VFW Chapter and ask them for help properly disposing of your flag. And be sure to consider providing a small donation to them for their assistance. Or you can contact your local Elks Lodge (who created the idea of Flag Day, established officially by President Truman, himself a member of the Elks) or the American Legion. Some Boy Scout and Girl Scout troups also can provide this service.

And consider the implications of making flag burning illegal: no doubt protesters of such a law would burn more flags, resulting in legal costs, court time, and possibly imprisonment, which will all land on my desk the next time I have to pay taxes. And if we made flag burning illegal . . . what about pictures of flags? What about tearing up pictures of flags (ala Sinead - "Fight the real enemy!")?

Making flag burning illegal won't stop protesters from doing something to piss you off.

Still, I do agree that some countries have more freedoms in narrower areas. But when it comes to across-the-board freedoms, a US citizen in the US has a hell of a lot.

Just incase no one else has mentioned this American patriot's opinion.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04 .htm/

I thought a lot of 'rights' in the US where infered from the constitutaional articles.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

Like the right to privacy being not a direct right granted in the constitution, but something following from the wording of an article, an interpretation of the 'will' (if you will :)) of the founding fathers.

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 Delcaration of Independence's first paragraph says:

one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another

In the present circumstances, the signatories to the Declaration of Independence would consider you a traitor and have you hanged by the neck until dead for one very obvious reason:

The moment the second man added his signature to the Declaration of Independence according to you it was invalidated because when individuals act as a group they lose their right to self-determination.

As Benjamin Franklin said during the meeting where the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence:

We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.

When we are living under the direct guns of tyranny -- not separated by a difficult journey, such as was the ocean in 1776, and without leaders of much material substance to stand with us, such as were the Founders -- the consequences of the treason such as yours are all the more serious.

I demand your blood in the soil from birth to know where your loyalties are rooted.

Good idea, because where you are born determines your loyalty so accurately.

Yeah! That Ben Franklin, always spouting off without thinking about the issues. What a dumb ass. [/sarcasm]

You sir, are an idiot. Do you really consider being able "to ravage that hot chick walking down the street," is an essential liberty?

As a US citizen, when I go into the voting booth, I'll be thinking of essential liberties such as going to see my president speak without having to sign a loyalty oath, wearing a t-shirt with a slogan supporting a currently-out-of-power political party without being hassled by the secret service, reporters recording a speech given by a supreme court justice without getting bullied by US marshals

Speed limits don't make me think I'm seeing an empire in the decline. I get that from an administration that feels free to go around the world putting people into secret prisons, torturing prisoners, killing prisoners, calling the Geneva convention "quaint."

The people who aren't pissed off (whether on the right or the left) just aren't paying attention.

The problem people have is their definition of "law". The legacy of religion teaches them that laws are absolute facts of nature, set by an unimpeachable, all-wise, omnipotent authority. So they think that, for example, Newton's laws of thermodynamics are more than concise descriptions of consistent observations, and find relativity and quantum mechanics "subversive". All these laws are a model of phenomena, codified and communicated among humans to create reasonable expectations of those phenomena. That allows us to harness the phenomena for fun and profit.

This problem is perpetuated by those in power. They usually are more clueful about the nature of law, and work around it for their own purposes, while indoctrinating those in their power with the fictional "authority" paradigm. They themselves fill the power vacuum where that natural authority would exist, but doesn't. So once American government became the Establishment, it would never allow breaches of its authority.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

That wasn't good enough to allow Dixie to secede. Not only because the laws of nature and public opinion were against them, but because a new law had been set up, preventing their succession. Its these conflicts of laws, including the laws perpetuating slavery, with actual natural phenomena, like the human struggle for liberty, that enable violence. Changing the law, so we can live as we would, is much better.

Michael Moore and Thomas Paine have a lot in common. That can be construed as both a compliment and an insult. Please read some of his work (see the above link) and you'll understand. It's rather appropo analogy.

No. The equivalent to "trespass" on public airwaves would be broadcasting without a license. Receiving radio signals (as covered ad nauseum in previous posts) does not diminish anyone's ability to use the frequencies one is receiving.

Do you not understand the basic priciples of the rights of man? You seem to be unclear on the distinctions between rights and law. May I suggest a little Thomas Paine?

I propose the Thomas Paine Institute in recognition of Common Sense.

I propose the Thomas Paine Institute in recognition of Common Sense.

Benedict Arnold

I still don't get it.

MGS2 was great for that very reason. It made you *think* about the world around you, the context that the Metal Gear games play in the real world e.g. "a virtual grunt of the digital age - just great!" (Snake/Plisskin commenting on how military training on a computer can never be as good as training outdoors, in a field, etc.). Or take his comment of "what better way to insulate you from the harsh realities of war than using a computer simulation?" (a none-too-subtle reference to MGS2 itself promoting warlike violence).

True, the plot in MGS2 got too-convoluted to make much sense after a while, and MGS2 wasn't as realistic in terms of "easily-realizable near-future battlefield reality" as MGS or the original Metal Gear. But was still an utterly amazing game.

Interestingly, the title - "Sons of Liberty" - was the name of a group of opponents of Britain's Stamp Act imposed on the United States. While the Founding Fathers were sympathetic to the SoL's cause, they couldn't be taken seriously by other politicians if they had been associated with the SoL's violence...

The Sons of Liberty were -- in modern terms -- a domestic terrorist organization: they used force in order to achieve their goal of eliminating the Stamp Act. That follows the definition of terrorism. Fortunately for us, the "terrorists" won...

What's the relation to MGS2? Snake and Raiden are part of a "fringe" NGO which uses force to destroy Metal Gears because they pose such a great threat to world stability. That too follows the definition of terrorism. Thus, you play either a terrorist or a freedom-fighter in MGS2 -- it depends on your POV. Personally, I prefer the freedom-fighter view.

It's connections like those that make the MGS games so damn cool.

Er, what about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? "Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy..."

Rights are given to you by the governing body

Not according to the Declaration of Independence. "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." It says that governments only exist "to secure these rights," not to bestow them, implying that the rights themselves exist outside the framework of any governing body.

But oh, yeah, I forgot, it's about time we stopped basing our society on these outdated ideas and moldy old documents and converted to pure, unadulterated Social Darwinism, right?

1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
12. "It's free."

What Marc left out is ---
13. "I'm using it to offshore firstworld jobs to the third world, and I'm damned proud of it" Mar. 22, 2004 Toronto Star Article

Andreessen is not a friend to techies, He's our Benedict Arnold

*sigh*

The quote goes like this:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety"

And it was Benjamin Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson.

This is one of the most frequently abused quotes on Slashdot, especially by idiot armchair-Libertarians*, since the misquote usually says "those that would give up liberty to gain safety deserve neither", which means that anyone who gives up ANY liberty for ANY amount of safety is somehow no longer entitled to either. Franklin's point was that while some liberties can be worth relinquishing in the name of real and necessary safeties, it's when one is ready to trade in essential liberties for a little temporary safety that one is being cowardly and foolish.

As for the GPL, I think the tradeoff of liberty is 100% worth the safety received. Do you really think that we wouldn't have seen a zillion proprietary forks of the Linux kernel by now if it weren't protected by something like the GPL? We haven't seen the BSDs fork too terribly, true, but they also never became as popular. In fact, I don't think *BSD ever could have become as popular as Linux is now, since you there's no way you could get an industry consortium to all contribute to the same kernel that was under a BSD licence, since every business involved would be too worried that one of the others would eventually fork and stop contributing back, whereas the GPL ensures that no one company can just say "Ha ha, screw you guys, we're taking your work and not giving a damn thing back!" Naturally, the GPL isn't for everything - even RMS agreed that the Vorbis decoding libraries should be BSD licensed, not GPL or LGPL. (So anyone who insists that he's completely insane/inflexible can suck it. He can be annoying with the GNU/Linux thing, though...)

* note to the humorless and/or spastic: No, I am not implying that the parent poster is necessarily one of these, nor am I saying that all Libertarians are idiots, so put your flamethrower down and think before hitting "Submit", please.

So does this include OS X?

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

I work in Philadelphia.. in the historial area. Reminders and memorials of Franklin are everywhere. Sometime ago, I found myself interested in this man who seemed facinated and involved with seemingly every aspect of his time. He always had an opinion and as the article pointed out, was willing to change his mind. He was truly beloved by his contemporaries - when he died in 1790, his funeral was a testament to the regard he was held - in all diciplines of his day.

Of course we can focus on a single aspect of his interests and be impressed (they are after all of his time), but things like he was a prolific, practical inventor but never sought a patent.. he argued (unsucessfully) for an anti-slavery clause to the constitution.. he was a nerd with great social skills.. he was first and foremost a printer and communicator; I'm sure he would be quite pleased with OSS and the internet.

In the political/civic arena, his wisdom and participation was sought after. Yes, everyone loves to quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." but his contribution to the design of the great seal of the US included the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." Go figure. His son was Governor of New Jersey and a loyalist to King George.

The liberty bell is being moved on Oct 9th!

Time to start hording lemons, pennies, and dimes!

This.

Wasn't vigilanteism and anarchy how the American Rrevolution started? Americans said "laws be damned, no more taxes to the British"?

Not really (except, perhaps, from a contemporary British perspective). The American Revolution started when the Second Continental Congress declared itself independant from Britain following a dozen years of wrangling between the colonial governments and King George III. There may have been some vigilantes in the mix (e.g. the Sons of Liberty), but they were not the cause of the war and they did not start the war. I don't think you can make any case for anarchy in the colonies: one of the things that the colonists were upset about was that they weren't represented in the British government. They wanted government, but they wanted a fair and representative government.

Those aren't necessarily bad things. In fact, they're usually the only way of getting your voice heard once the government is corrupted (in this case by the RIAA's bribes... I mean, campaign contributions ;) ).

Back to your sig... I'd suggest that one way of getting your voice heard is to vote and encourage others to do the same. Assuming that your sig is in fact correct, you should have no problem mobilizing an enormous number of Kazaa users. It's not hard to get your voice heard if you just bother to speak up.

It's the lawyers... in the future, the ABILITY exists to travel back in time, but the LIABILITY isn't covered. In order for you to be contacted, or to interact with these humans from the future, you'll need to sign the release forms in the present. You will also have to hope that your disclaimer and the cost of the trip will survive until such time (in the form of a funded provision in a will perhaps, al la Ben Franklin's gift to Philadelphia?)

Due to the total control/destruction of information in 2112 (caused in part by current RIAA policies and the DMCA) almost none of these release forms survived - hence there are no time travelers contact you or anyone you know.


(This post covered under temporal release #852387522178-A)

Did they read the document they swore to uphold? Our rights are endowed to us by our creator.

Um, no. He said:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Ooops! Somehow it seems to me that Franklin was not the blind fanatic you make him out to be.

And what freedom exactly did you lose on that date?

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.

Well, I know this doesn't count, but my understanding was always that if a flag is so tarnished (literally, not figuratively) that you cannot display it, the proper and respectful course of action was to burn it.

So I checked, and at this site I found what they claim is the text of an Executive Order, issued by some president or another (they don't specify):

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.