"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill.
That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
"In the 19nth century, when prices were falling, the small farmers were being hurt because there wasn't enough inflation, so they kept owing more and more to the banks."
The prices were falling because production was expanding. This is called "supply and demand", and that's the way free markets are supposed to work.
"The problem with the gold standard is that it didn't permit elasticity."
The "elasticity" you refer to is the ability of government to print money it doesn't have and didn't earn or tax. This was the direct cause of both the cancellation of the internal gold standard in 1934 and Nixon's axing of the Bretton-Woods system in 1971.
We can see what effect those two decisions had. It's all due to government wanting (and spending) more than it can afford. And it's hurt everybody. (Except, of course, those who actually benefit from inflation: government, banks, and Wall Street. Everybody else suffers.)
The "elasticity" problem wasn't due to wartime and other "emergencies"... it was due to the government spending too much money, and its perceived need to get its hands on more. As you can see from the linked chart, until that happened inflation was not necessary (except for small blips around wartime, as in the labeled boxes... and it ALWAYS went back to normal afterward, until government changed all that).
Just as Alan Greenspan, a man with whom I often disagree, wrote in 1966:
"Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process."
" I know this Jsuda moron isn't very smart, but he is working hard to make himself look illiterate by doing this Republican-style thing."
Considering that it was Democrat-style thinking (yes, even on the part of George Bush) that got us into this financial mess (i.e., monetary policy plus government intervention in housing and other markets), I would be careful about referring to Party-style thinking if I were you.
Let's see... what has this DEMOCRAT-controlled administration done for us in the last 6 years?
Least transparent government in living memory; economic "recovery" that really wasn't; inflation that is only now starting to hit home; Obamacare that nobody in their right mind wanted; wildly expanded NSA surveillance which has pissed off our enemies, our allies AND our own citizens; Benghazi; drone murders; the greatest collection of blatant public lies to the people (again in living memory); failed foreign policy; ah, hell, I'm tired of listing things.
Oh, wait... one more: imaginary "climate change". (If you don't think that has ties to political ideology, look at the latest survey of members of the American Meteorology Society).
While I would not be surprised to get lots of flak over that last comment, that's just another symptom of exactly what I am talking about.
I refused to use Dropbox ever since its "end to end encryption" claim was shown to be false, and they were de-duping your files. (De-duping required access to the original files, which Dropbox tried to claim they didn't have.)
Then they said they were changing that practice. But how far could you trust them, considering that they had already lied to everybody? Fool me once, and all that.
NOW, apparently they're checking your files -- which back when they again claimed they weren't accessing -- for copyrighted content, which again requires access to your original files. (Even if you're just doing an MD5 hash or some such, you still need access to the original file to do it.)
So, yeah. For all those who didn't drop Dropbox when I did, maybe it's time.
"Beveled Keys have been in use since the HP 35 calculator. The HP35 was HP's very first calculator and the first iterations only had printing on a few of the keys -- the rest of the key designations were printed on the board the keys protruded through. The HP41 (early to mid 1980's) had a full alphabet keyboard as well as punctuation and all the keys were beveled. As I understand the patent, it should be thrown out due to prior art or at least obviousness since all the HP keys were beveled."
There exists a thing called a "design patent" which prevents others from copying your style. I could be wrong, but I suspect that is what is at issue here.
Indeed. I have often said that it doesn't take a genuine conspiracy in order to have the effect of a conspiracy. A group of wrong-headed individuals, acting entirely on their own, can really mess things up in a way that appears to outside observers as the result of a concerted effort.
"If you hadn't missed it, why reply to a specifically quoted in a manner that indicates you hadn't realized it was sarcasm?"
Look, since this seems to be going over your head, I'll explain it in detail, okay?
The FIRST PART of what you said was:
"Don't blame just the cities and counties for that."
which seemed pretty serious. Then, the next part:
"Oh woe is us, we can't possibly put up lines and run the risk of somebody else coming in to steal our thunder..."
is OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic. BUT, the part following that:
"... please give us an exclusive franchise, and we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe."
Seemed pretty serious again... for the simple reason that is what happened in a lot of the U.S. I know it did in my area. So while you wrote it in a snarky manner, I had every reason to believe you were being serious.
Then the following part:
"They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their own rights to the line (like your power company) from competing."
Appears perfectly serious again. So pardon the fuck out of me, but while I *DID* get the sarcasm in your tone, at least most of what you were writing appeared to be serious. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know. I can say something in a sarcastic manner and still be serious about the subject matter.
"You don't get the Sarcasm Channel there either, do you?"
Actually I did get your sarcasm. But it wasn't very obvious where the sarcasm actually began and ended. The last part was obviously serious, and I thought perhaps you meant the first part seriously too, with just the middle being sarcastic.
"If you're going to chop-quote, at least make it so you aren't showing how you missed the point of what I said."
I didn't miss anything. But you sure seem to have.
"You don't have the right to break a contract except as allowed by law and the contract itself (and then only of the contract is legal)."
In most states of the U.S., both employer and employee have the right to terminate the employment for any reason that does not violate civil rights laws, unless your contract says otherwise. That leaves a nearly infinite range of reasons. "I don't like the way you smile" is a perfectly legitimate and legal reason.
"Attempting to fire an employee for using his free speech rights outside company hours would get you in a shitload of trouble in my country."
In some circumstances it could in the U.S. too, but not most circumstances. Publicly denouncing your boss would usually be considered a valid reason for termination because it indicates a lack of the minimum mutual respect that would be necessary for comfortable working conditions.
"That suggestion goes against other evidence, and simple logic that distraction contributes to accidents."
No, it doesn't. WHOOSH
Read my other comment further up. First, "simple logic" often does not apply to statistics. Time and time and time again we have seen news stories touting mere correlation as cause-effect, when it really wasn't.
As I stated earlier, the theory goes like this: "distracted drivers" tend to get into accidents... no matter what they are using for distraction. If it isn't cell phones, they will distract themselves with taking their eyes off the road to talk to passengers, or try to read a map while driving, etc.
The point being that it is the distracted driver that is the problem, not cell phones. And this is supported by the consistent finding that both passing and repealing laws against cell phones -- for many years now -- have shown to have about zero effect on accident rates.
For that matter, one study concluded that laws against texting while driving did not reduce accidents because some drivers tried to hold the phone in their lap while texting so it wouldn't be seen by police.
I am not aware of any studies that have shown that laws against cell phone use have actually reduced accidents. I'm not interested in the intent of the law, I'm interested in the results. If you know of any studies that show those results I'd be interested in seeing them.
"... we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe."
There's nothing "honest" about it, and yes you can blame those officials.
"They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their own rights to the line (like your power company) from competing."
"There is no implied "right to be heard" as that would require the government to *ensure* you are heard (as that's the entire point of rights)."
No, and no.
First, as I already explained above, there IS an implied "right to be heard", but second, no it doesn't imply a right of positive action on the part of government. How could it?
I have a right to self defense. And a right to keep and bear arms. (Both acknowledged by the Supreme Court.) Does that imply that the government must guarantee me a supply of weapons? Of course not. But it does say that the government must not interfere with my self-defense, or try to take my weapons.
In the same vein, the government (as I stated elsewhere) does not owe me a bullhorn. Nor does society as a whole. But they must stand aside and not interfere with my speech, so that I can be heard. That's the sense of the "right" I was describing.
If the government were allowed to interfere such that my speech could not be heard, what would be the point of my right to speech? Answer: there would be none. It is not possible to truly have the one without the other. Unheard speech is effectively no speech.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just responding to GP's specific question. There is an implied "right to be heard", associated with the right to free speech. But I don't see how it applies to this specific situation.
"You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract."
Making bad judgment calls is perfectly justifiable grounds for termination. Even in states that are pretty strict about such things.
Making loud public pronouncements about your company and your disagreements about how it works would be considered by many -- if not most -- companies to be very, very bad judgment. The guy isn't a whistleblower. He isn't outing a spy or a crook. He just made public statements about his boss's fitness for duty due to his private political views.
Yep. I'd shitcan him on the spot. He certainly has a right to an opinion, and he certainly has a right to free speech. But he doesn't have a "right" to work for me. That requires enough mutual respect to refrain from public soapboxing.
"No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead."
Many people would consider a public statement that your new CEO should step down constitutes "harm".
"Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards."
You don't get it. It isn't a matter of people not liking me or not agreeing with me. As I stated earlier: it's low tolerance for bullshit. Why should I tolerate an employee who berates me in public, for whatever reason? He's not a "whistleblower". He's not outing me for breaking the law or unethical business practices. So why should I put up with it?
I will put it a different way: if I were a Democrat (I'm not) and you were a Republican (I have no idea), would I -- should I -- tolerate you, as an employee, making a public statement that I should step down because of my politics?
Guess what? I'd let you go whether you thought I should be able to or not. It's just bad judgment. Why should I tolerate employees who display such bad judgment? Why should I tolerate employees who try to make me look bad in public, when I haven't done anything illegal? Etc. It just isn't going to happen.
"How can having a cell phone in one hand not be more dangerous?"
You are displaying exactly the kind of mindset that is the whole problem here.
"It is so obvious that talking on cell phones causes accidents, that we should just pass laws against it before we do any studies on the actual causes."
"it is obvious that holding a cell phone to your ear is more dangerous than using a hands-free device."
This is the thing with science: it often shows us things that seem to be obvious, but that aren't true.
Here are some statistics that people seem to consistently find surprising:
Traffic-light cameras often actually increase accident rates.
Cell phone use does not appear to be a statistically significant cause of accidents (in spite of the correlation).
Hands-free devices are not significantly safer than holding a cell phone.
It's what the studies have found. I have no reason to think that any of those studies -- especially considering that they have been repeated by others -- have anything wrong with them.
"That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars.
e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?"
It doesn't prove anything, but neither does a correlation between cell phone use and accidents. So what is your point?
It does very strongly suggest that cell phone use is not a particular cause of accidents.
It comes from the right to free speech. A right to free speech has absolutely no point if that speech can't be heard.
This is not a requirement that the government supply me with a bullhorn... but it is a restriction on government, in that government is absolutely prohibited from preventing speech from being heard.
"Actually gnasher is correct - you have no *right* to the source code, you only have a *right* to either insist they abide by the licence terms or be in violation of copyright, and if its the latter then you need someone whose copyright is being violated to bring suit against them as no one else can do it in their stead."
If you want to get into hair-splitting mode, then yes. But I think that's going a bit far.
Copyright and patents are the only "rights" mentioned in the Constitution that are bestowed by government... and those only temporarily. All other "rights" are presumed to have already existed; the Constitution merely acknowledges them, it doesn't "give" them.
So if you want to compare copyright to what most people consider to be Constitution rights, even if the document uses that word, it still isn't the same.
So again: if you really want to get into extremely fine hair-splitting, then copyright isn't a "right". But the Constitution does at least call it one.
I will also bet you anything that if they bothered to study it, they'd find that there is approximately as much correlation between bottled water and auto accidents as there is between cell phones and accidents.
They don't study that, though, because they think it's ridiculous. It just doesn't occur to them that the other could be just as wrong.
""When you PRY it from my COLD, DEAD... oh, yeah. Well, never mind. Carry on and all that.""
When I saw OP I could only sigh. This bullshit, all over again. Again.
People have been studying this in excruciating detail for years. While there is a strong correlation between cell-phone use and accidents, any evidence of causation is glaringly absent.
Instead, they propose that accidents are caused by drivers who are easily distracted... but if they weren't distracted by the cell phone, they'd find something else to get distracted over.
How do we know? Because THEY DO. Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates. In areas where such laws were repealed, accident rates did not increase. There is literally NOTHING that shows talking on cell phones is a major cause of accidents.
(And by the way: if your area, like mine, has a law against holding the phone to your ear, but not against the use of hands-free devices, you may be comforted -- or not -- by knowing that there is no statistical difference in accidents between the two methods of phone use. None.)
Slashdot Mirror
"And whats-his-name Watts, Steven Milloy and Fox "News" are in it for their own health."
No, they're in it for ours.
Thanks guys.
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill.
That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
"In the 19nth century, when prices were falling, the small farmers were being hurt because there wasn't enough inflation, so they kept owing more and more to the banks."
The prices were falling because production was expanding. This is called "supply and demand", and that's the way free markets are supposed to work.
"The problem with the gold standard is that it didn't permit elasticity."
The "elasticity" you refer to is the ability of government to print money it doesn't have and didn't earn or tax. This was the direct cause of both the cancellation of the internal gold standard in 1934 and Nixon's axing of the Bretton-Woods system in 1971.
We can see what effect those two decisions had. It's all due to government wanting (and spending) more than it can afford. And it's hurt everybody. (Except, of course, those who actually benefit from inflation: government, banks, and Wall Street. Everybody else suffers.)
The "elasticity" problem wasn't due to wartime and other "emergencies"... it was due to the government spending too much money, and its perceived need to get its hands on more. As you can see from the linked chart, until that happened inflation was not necessary (except for small blips around wartime, as in the labeled boxes... and it ALWAYS went back to normal afterward, until government changed all that).
Just as Alan Greenspan, a man with whom I often disagree, wrote in 1966:
"Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process."
s/Meteorology/Meteorological
" I know this Jsuda moron isn't very smart, but he is working hard to make himself look illiterate by doing this Republican-style thing."
Considering that it was Democrat-style thinking (yes, even on the part of George Bush) that got us into this financial mess (i.e., monetary policy plus government intervention in housing and other markets), I would be careful about referring to Party-style thinking if I were you.
Let's see... what has this DEMOCRAT-controlled administration done for us in the last 6 years?
Least transparent government in living memory; economic "recovery" that really wasn't; inflation that is only now starting to hit home; Obamacare that nobody in their right mind wanted; wildly expanded NSA surveillance which has pissed off our enemies, our allies AND our own citizens; Benghazi; drone murders; the greatest collection of blatant public lies to the people (again in living memory); failed foreign policy; ah, hell, I'm tired of listing things.
Oh, wait... one more: imaginary "climate change". (If you don't think that has ties to political ideology, look at the latest survey of members of the American Meteorology Society).
While I would not be surprised to get lots of flak over that last comment, that's just another symptom of exactly what I am talking about.
I refused to use Dropbox ever since its "end to end encryption" claim was shown to be false, and they were de-duping your files. (De-duping required access to the original files, which Dropbox tried to claim they didn't have.)
Then they said they were changing that practice. But how far could you trust them, considering that they had already lied to everybody? Fool me once, and all that.
NOW, apparently they're checking your files -- which back when they again claimed they weren't accessing -- for copyrighted content, which again requires access to your original files. (Even if you're just doing an MD5 hash or some such, you still need access to the original file to do it.)
So, yeah. For all those who didn't drop Dropbox when I did, maybe it's time.
"Beveled Keys have been in use since the HP 35 calculator. The HP35 was HP's very first calculator and the first iterations only had printing on a few of the keys -- the rest of the key designations were printed on the board the keys protruded through. The HP41 (early to mid 1980's) had a full alphabet keyboard as well as punctuation and all the keys were beveled. As I understand the patent, it should be thrown out due to prior art or at least obviousness since all the HP keys were beveled."
There exists a thing called a "design patent" which prevents others from copying your style. I could be wrong, but I suspect that is what is at issue here.
"No, no you had no reason whatsoever to believe it was anything but sarcasm"
So now you claim to know what I'm thinking?
Go away. I don't have time for this BS.
"Beware the Little Eichmanns."
Indeed. I have often said that it doesn't take a genuine conspiracy in order to have the effect of a conspiracy. A group of wrong-headed individuals, acting entirely on their own, can really mess things up in a way that appears to outside observers as the result of a concerted effort.
"Bureaucracy is low intensity conflict, i.e. war."
No. Office politics are low intensity war.
Bureaucracy is a virus; existing only to grow and multiply at the expense of the host.
"If you hadn't missed it, why reply to a specifically quoted in a manner that indicates you hadn't realized it was sarcasm?"
Look, since this seems to be going over your head, I'll explain it in detail, okay?
The FIRST PART of what you said was:
"Don't blame just the cities and counties for that."
which seemed pretty serious. Then, the next part:
"Oh woe is us, we can't possibly put up lines and run the risk of somebody else coming in to steal our thunder..."
is OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic. BUT, the part following that:
"... please give us an exclusive franchise, and we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe."
Seemed pretty serious again... for the simple reason that is what happened in a lot of the U.S. I know it did in my area. So while you wrote it in a snarky manner, I had every reason to believe you were being serious.
Then the following part:
"They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their own rights to the line (like your power company) from competing."
Appears perfectly serious again. So pardon the fuck out of me, but while I *DID* get the sarcasm in your tone, at least most of what you were writing appeared to be serious. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know. I can say something in a sarcastic manner and still be serious about the subject matter.
"You don't get the Sarcasm Channel there either, do you?"
Actually I did get your sarcasm. But it wasn't very obvious where the sarcasm actually began and ended. The last part was obviously serious, and I thought perhaps you meant the first part seriously too, with just the middle being sarcastic.
"If you're going to chop-quote, at least make it so you aren't showing how you missed the point of what I said."
I didn't miss anything. But you sure seem to have.
"You don't have the right to break a contract except as allowed by law and the contract itself (and then only of the contract is legal)."
In most states of the U.S., both employer and employee have the right to terminate the employment for any reason that does not violate civil rights laws, unless your contract says otherwise. That leaves a nearly infinite range of reasons. "I don't like the way you smile" is a perfectly legitimate and legal reason.
"Attempting to fire an employee for using his free speech rights outside company hours would get you in a shitload of trouble in my country."
In some circumstances it could in the U.S. too, but not most circumstances. Publicly denouncing your boss would usually be considered a valid reason for termination because it indicates a lack of the minimum mutual respect that would be necessary for comfortable working conditions.
"That suggestion goes against other evidence, and simple logic that distraction contributes to accidents."
No, it doesn't. WHOOSH
Read my other comment further up. First, "simple logic" often does not apply to statistics. Time and time and time again we have seen news stories touting mere correlation as cause-effect, when it really wasn't.
As I stated earlier, the theory goes like this: "distracted drivers" tend to get into accidents... no matter what they are using for distraction. If it isn't cell phones, they will distract themselves with taking their eyes off the road to talk to passengers, or try to read a map while driving, etc.
The point being that it is the distracted driver that is the problem, not cell phones. And this is supported by the consistent finding that both passing and repealing laws against cell phones -- for many years now -- have shown to have about zero effect on accident rates.
For that matter, one study concluded that laws against texting while driving did not reduce accidents because some drivers tried to hold the phone in their lap while texting so it wouldn't be seen by police.
I am not aware of any studies that have shown that laws against cell phone use have actually reduced accidents. I'm not interested in the intent of the law, I'm interested in the results. If you know of any studies that show those results I'd be interested in seeing them.
"... we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe."
There's nothing "honest" about it, and yes you can blame those officials.
"They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their own rights to the line (like your power company) from competing."
Not here.
"There is no implied "right to be heard" as that would require the government to *ensure* you are heard (as that's the entire point of rights)."
No, and no.
First, as I already explained above, there IS an implied "right to be heard", but second, no it doesn't imply a right of positive action on the part of government. How could it?
I have a right to self defense. And a right to keep and bear arms. (Both acknowledged by the Supreme Court.) Does that imply that the government must guarantee me a supply of weapons? Of course not. But it does say that the government must not interfere with my self-defense, or try to take my weapons.
In the same vein, the government (as I stated elsewhere) does not owe me a bullhorn. Nor does society as a whole. But they must stand aside and not interfere with my speech, so that I can be heard. That's the sense of the "right" I was describing.
If the government were allowed to interfere such that my speech could not be heard, what would be the point of my right to speech? Answer: there would be none. It is not possible to truly have the one without the other. Unheard speech is effectively no speech.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just responding to GP's specific question. There is an implied "right to be heard", associated with the right to free speech. But I don't see how it applies to this specific situation.
"You seem to think you are the feudal lord rather than one signatory to a contract."
Making bad judgment calls is perfectly justifiable grounds for termination. Even in states that are pretty strict about such things.
Making loud public pronouncements about your company and your disagreements about how it works would be considered by many -- if not most -- companies to be very, very bad judgment. The guy isn't a whistleblower. He isn't outing a spy or a crook. He just made public statements about his boss's fitness for duty due to his private political views.
Yep. I'd shitcan him on the spot. He certainly has a right to an opinion, and he certainly has a right to free speech. But he doesn't have a "right" to work for me. That requires enough mutual respect to refrain from public soapboxing.
"No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead."
Many people would consider a public statement that your new CEO should step down constitutes "harm".
"Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards."
You don't get it. It isn't a matter of people not liking me or not agreeing with me. As I stated earlier: it's low tolerance for bullshit. Why should I tolerate an employee who berates me in public, for whatever reason? He's not a "whistleblower". He's not outing me for breaking the law or unethical business practices. So why should I put up with it?
I will put it a different way: if I were a Democrat (I'm not) and you were a Republican (I have no idea), would I -- should I -- tolerate you, as an employee, making a public statement that I should step down because of my politics?
Guess what? I'd let you go whether you thought I should be able to or not. It's just bad judgment. Why should I tolerate employees who display such bad judgment? Why should I tolerate employees who try to make me look bad in public, when I haven't done anything illegal? Etc. It just isn't going to happen.
"How can having a cell phone in one hand not be more dangerous?"
You are displaying exactly the kind of mindset that is the whole problem here.
"It is so obvious that talking on cell phones causes accidents, that we should just pass laws against it before we do any studies on the actual causes."
"it is obvious that holding a cell phone to your ear is more dangerous than using a hands-free device."
This is the thing with science: it often shows us things that seem to be obvious, but that aren't true.
Here are some statistics that people seem to consistently find surprising:
Traffic-light cameras often actually increase accident rates.
Cell phone use does not appear to be a statistically significant cause of accidents (in spite of the correlation).
Hands-free devices are not significantly safer than holding a cell phone.
It's what the studies have found. I have no reason to think that any of those studies -- especially considering that they have been repeated by others -- have anything wrong with them.
I believe the science. Not what it "obvious".
"That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars. e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?"
It doesn't prove anything, but neither does a correlation between cell phone use and accidents. So what is your point?
It does very strongly suggest that cell phone use is not a particular cause of accidents.
"Where does this right you mention come from?"
It comes from the right to free speech. A right to free speech has absolutely no point if that speech can't be heard.
This is not a requirement that the government supply me with a bullhorn... but it is a restriction on government, in that government is absolutely prohibited from preventing speech from being heard.
"Actually gnasher is correct - you have no *right* to the source code, you only have a *right* to either insist they abide by the licence terms or be in violation of copyright, and if its the latter then you need someone whose copyright is being violated to bring suit against them as no one else can do it in their stead."
If you want to get into hair-splitting mode, then yes. But I think that's going a bit far.
Copyright and patents are the only "rights" mentioned in the Constitution that are bestowed by government... and those only temporarily. All other "rights" are presumed to have already existed; the Constitution merely acknowledges them, it doesn't "give" them.
So if you want to compare copyright to what most people consider to be Constitution rights, even if the document uses that word, it still isn't the same.
So again: if you really want to get into extremely fine hair-splitting, then copyright isn't a "right". But the Constitution does at least call it one.
I will also bet you anything that if they bothered to study it, they'd find that there is approximately as much correlation between bottled water and auto accidents as there is between cell phones and accidents.
They don't study that, though, because they think it's ridiculous. It just doesn't occur to them that the other could be just as wrong.
""When you PRY it from my COLD, DEAD... oh, yeah. Well, never mind. Carry on and all that.""
When I saw OP I could only sigh. This bullshit, all over again. Again.
People have been studying this in excruciating detail for years. While there is a strong correlation between cell-phone use and accidents, any evidence of causation is glaringly absent.
Instead, they propose that accidents are caused by drivers who are easily distracted... but if they weren't distracted by the cell phone, they'd find something else to get distracted over.
How do we know? Because THEY DO. Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates. In areas where such laws were repealed, accident rates did not increase. There is literally NOTHING that shows talking on cell phones is a major cause of accidents.
(And by the way: if your area, like mine, has a law against holding the phone to your ear, but not against the use of hands-free devices, you may be comforted -- or not -- by knowing that there is no statistical difference in accidents between the two methods of phone use. None.)