The article is of dubious value, but you have some interesting points. I don't think we suffer from an "Overabundance of qualified, educated people". I'm risking getting blasted here, BUT, I think we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree.
I think you're mostly correct. One of the reasons we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree is the sense of entitlement that we have engendered into our society in the last 30 years or so. That leads to an abundance of cheating and the lack of a real work ethic. Kids grow up thinking they deserve a big wage for doing nothing as they are given everything instead of their parents making them work for what they get.
The above leads directly to a lot of people with degrees being nothing more than mediocre workers, at best. This is a direct effect of the liberal philosophies of no discipline and and me, me, me, along with the idea that the government owes us a living.
If the kid is vegetarian, or on some other non-normal diet, a doctors note is not only required, but a nutrition plan must accompany it.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It is very easy to eat a balanced diet as a vegetarian. All the hype about not getting enough protein is simply that, hype. I grew up a vegetarian and I never even came close to being anemic or anything close to having any kind of disease related to dietary deficiencies. I know of 10s of 1000s of other people who eat the same way and not a one of has health problems related to their diets. In fact, as a group they live about 10 years longer than the average American citizen, have much lower cancer and heart disease rates than the average, and much better overall health. They also maintain high level brain functions until very late in life. Diseases such as Alzhiemers also affect them later in life, and at a lower rate, than the national average.
The group is known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. There have been several studies done on them because of their longer life expectancy and lower rates of all diseases. Google it. You'll find out it's true. There was a PBS special done on them and the diet they follow. It aired on a local PBS station here 3 or 4 weeks ago, but I don't know when it was produced.
t is theoretically possible to build a completely secure system, from a technological standpoint. The vulnerabilities are either physical weaknesses (you could just run off with my laptop) or people.
Err, that someone running of with your laptop is a "people". So is that someone who's writing malware.
You're wrong in saying administrator access is the basic difference between Linux and Windows. The most basic difference is in default file permissions. Windows ties read and execute together by default. You put an executable on a Windows system and it's immediately executable by anyone. That is not true with Linux. Executables are only executable by default if a a system tool, such as apt-get, yum, etc... is used to install them. Otherwise, the user himself must add the execute permission to the file.
This is a huge barrier to malware spreading like many instances of Windows malware has spread. Remember all those instances of one person opening an infected email and everyone in the office being infected as a result? Can't happen on Linux due to file permissions. That executable can't execute unless/until the user gives it execute permission.
Test it for yourself. Write a script on a Linux machine and try to execute it without adding execute permissions. You can't do it. Try that on Windows and it works. No changes necessary. That's a huge difference in security.
Often times, when people who believe in natural rights start proclaiming and such-and-such is or is not within someone's rights despite whatever the law may or may not say about it, social constructivists like you start going off about "who are you to declare what is or is not a right!?", declaring the natural rights person to be egotistical or arrogant or something for thinking that their word carries more power than the collective word of the elected legislature of the society.
If the poster had simply said, "In my opinion, blah, blah, blah" that would have been one thing. The reality is that he stated over and over again, in positive declaration, that Apple didn't have the right to do something. I gave him ample opportunity to say he wasn't the claiming the right to say what Apple's rights are. I asked him several times where he got the right to say what Apple's right are. He never backed off one iota. He's the one wanting to reconstruct society with him as the definitive authority over other people's rights if the expression of their rights affect him in any way. As a programmer/developer he, more than most, should understand the importance of syntax and grammar. He stuck to his wording. He said what he meant.
My point was, if Apple wants to cut off their nose to spite their face, which is what I see them doing here, they are free to do so. It's their business, they can do what they want with it. If we don't agree, then we are free to go elsewhere with our business. We can choose to protest if we feel strongly enough about it. We don't have to respect Apple's way of doing business, but we must respect Apple's right to do business as they choose. That's the basis of true, workable, freedom for all of us. We, each of us, want our own rights to be respected, so we must respect the rights of others, or none of us end up having our rights respected. This is something I find to be worth "fighting" over.
As to the origins of our rights as men(the generic man, not the gender), I agree with the founders of our country and originators of our Declaration of Independence. Our individual rights come from our Creator, not government, nor were they found just lying around unused, and along with them I declare these rights to be self-evident truth.
Methinks you need to study the following before you begin calling me a "social constructivist" as I did nothing but echo the principles found therein. If you don't understand the foundations of our form of government, that's not my fault.
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I'm glad the men who wrote that document were men who really understood human nature.
Put another way, Apple has no right to regulate the road developers take to arrive at a point, only the point that they arrive at. They are doing the former, not the latter.
Really? You are the arbiter of Apple's rights? You have the "right" to arbitrarily decide how Apple runs their own business? According to your line of reasoning I have the right to tell you how to make and spend your money.
So, from now on you cannot buy, or use, any products made by Apple, Microsoft, RedHat, Novell, Intel, AMD, NVidia, WD, Hitachi, Dell, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, any Linux distro, etc.... I've restricted your ability to use any of these products because I have arbitrarily decided that I don't like what you're doing. You now have to make your living by mowing lawns too.
Do you like my decisions about how you make, and what you can do with, your money? Does it sound just-a-tad-arrogant on my part for me to tell you what you can and can't do with your money, your resources? If it sounds stupid to you, well, that's how you sound. Thinking you have the right to tell someone else how to run their business is just as stupid.
You can object to what Apple does. You can decide not to support them in protest of how they do business. You can protest as much as you want. But, you can't decide what Apple's "rights" really are. You have neither the right, nor the authority, to make that proclamation. We live in a Republic, not a Soviet-style authoritarian Communist country, where we all have the ability, and the right, to choose how we live and do business, as long as it isn't illegal, and what Apple is doing isn't even close to being illegal, nor should it be. Unless, of course, you want other people to have that kind of power over your life too.
I claim a right to do what I wish with my hardware (in this specific case, machines being used for development). That's all.
Where does Apple say you can't do that sitting at your desk/table at home? What they say is you can't do that, and then distribute that software through their software channels. What gives you the "right" to say they don't have the right to control their own software distribution channel?
Not everything, but no hardware manufacturer has the right to dictate what tools you may and may not use to develop on their platform.
And what makes you think you have the "right" to do as you wish with their platform? Isn't your position the pot calling the kettle black? You're claiming "rights" that don't exist the way I see it. You built nothing. You created nothing. Yet you claim a "right" to tell the creator and builder what to do with "his" own product.
So, your basic point is that I should have ignored the fact that post I originally replied to specifically referred to wires, and instead gone off on a rant about how evil all the telcos are.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I'm really evil for replying to a specific point in a specific post. Oh, I'm so ashamed of being so ignorant that I remained on point. Your post taught me so much I didn't already know.[/sarcasm]
They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.
If only that were true. All government agencies legislate through creating rules. Many of the freedoms we have lost have come about through bureaucratic rules.
Just where did I mention any company besides AT&T? That was the one company mentioned in the post I replied to, and they got their monopoly on phone service lines several decades ago.
I realize the games that have been played since then, but that isn't the point. If you're going to mention one specific company as an example then make it something relevant, something current. AT&Ts original lines, as well as their original equipment, are now basically irrelevant. Land(twisted pair copper) lines are dying, although there will be large parts of rural America that will be stuck using them for quite a few years. My in-laws didn't even get a party line until about 10 years ago.
You are getting close to the truth of the matter. Yes the telcos paid to put in the wires but it was subsidized in a way. It was part of a deal where AT&T would run wires to MOST[1] of the country in exchange for a monopoly.
Really? AT&T put in all the miles of fiber we now have back in the 40's? AT&Ts deal with the government was so many years ago that the lines they installed have long ago been outmoded. They were never designed to carry the amount, or type, of traffic that our modern communications systems use.
Being on Slashdot I would assume you like beavers and I would also assume you have not seen one in the wild.
That would be a false assumption. I've spent days watching all kinds of wildlife, including beaver, deer, elk, moose, coyotes, bear, badger, flying squirrels, weasels, bald eagles, osprey, various types of woodpeckers, hawks, jays, etc.... I've been within less than 50' of all of the animals I listed, in the wild, not a zoo. As a kid I spent every summer living in the mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Oregon. Most of those summers were spent 100 miles or so from the closest town.
You ignore the point that sheople can actually be coerced by a minor voice that happens to be right.
I have a question for you. How do you "coerce" someone by being right and convincing them that you are? That sounds like healthy debate/discussion in which people are open to actually listen and think about what's being said.
If you're right what you're saying is true. Why is it "coercion" to convince someone to believe truth?
I think liberals feel threatened by the idea that there might be conservative political candidates some day. But whenever it actually happens that a conservative runs for office, it' a pretty novel thing, and the conservative is cast as a weirdo.
Well, what your point shows, and it's a valid point, is that the mainstream TV news has a very liberal bias. There's no other reason the conservative candidates would be cast as weirdos on a consistent basis. Only those politically opposed to them would cast them as weirdos.
Talk radio is the last bastion of conservative thought and the progressives want to shut it down so that they would then control all the media. That's why they push a "fairness" doctrine that's anything but fair.
I do think you're going to see a big change in voting habits. Many conservatives are going to get voted into office this next election. The silent majority has been jarred into alertness with what has been happening to our country. They are going to vote, and vote in very large numbers. This is why the mainstream media is painting the tea party as racist, inciting violence, etc.... They oppose, and fear, the message and power of the political right so they slander its most visible representatives as much as possible.
Well, actually, what the fairness doctrine does is say that if there are no profitable liberal/progressive shows to broadcast then the conservative shows can't be broadcast either, or the liberal shows must be run at a loss to the station.
It's designed to keep conservative thought out of the airwaves.
Baloney. It's based on audience size. If the audience is small the show doesn't attract, or keep, sponsors. If the audience is large, it attracts, and keeps, sponsors because the sponsors want to sell their product to the largest possible audience.
The fact that the conservative shows make money means they have a large enough audience to attract and keep sponsors. No sponsor is going to support show A when they can support(advertise on) show B that has an audience 15 to 20 times larger. Thus show A gets canceled as it doesn't create enough revenue, and show B prospers and stays on the air.
Fascist economics is the wrong phrase here - it's a form of government control of the means of production for the sake (they say) of efficiency.
And Socialistic philosophy is the government control of the means of production for the sake (they say) of fairness.
Glenn Beck is correct when he says the socialists, communists, fascists, etc... belong at the same end of the political spectrum as they all advocate complete government control of everything. The total opposite of their political philosophy is anarchy, the absence of any government.
Can I think of anyone less qualified to govern than Glenn Beck? Yeah. Obama.
Every political idea has its fair chance at the podium now. If what its proponents have to say isn't something most people want to listen to, they fail to stay on the air. The government subsidizing political thought of one stripe or another is a scary thought. Be it conservative thought, progressive thought, Socialistic, Capitalistic, etc... the government has no business subsidizing it. That has no place in America.
I guess you would be for the fairness doctrine making sure the fascists, Nazis, anarchists, and all the white power groups get a "fair" hearing too. These political movements need to be subsidized to make sure they get free advertising to spread their message too, if you're really going to be "fair". If you're not in favor of that, given the position you've taken, then what you really want is the government to subsidize your personal political philosophy.
What you're suggesting is an even worse way to govern. Limiting political speech is against our constitution. It's against everything we, as American's, stand for, and have always stood for. It's the ultimate in government intrusion. It's an attempt at thought control by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is of dubious value, but you have some interesting points. I don't think we suffer from an "Overabundance of qualified, educated people". I'm risking getting blasted here, BUT, I think we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree.
I think you're mostly correct. One of the reasons we have an overabundance of mediocre people with a degree is the sense of entitlement that we have engendered into our society in the last 30 years or so. That leads to an abundance of cheating and the lack of a real work ethic. Kids grow up thinking they deserve a big wage for doing nothing as they are given everything instead of their parents making them work for what they get.
The above leads directly to a lot of people with degrees being nothing more than mediocre workers, at best. This is a direct effect of the liberal philosophies of no discipline and and me, me, me, along with the idea that the government owes us a living.
Yeah, you crushed it. I knew better, but let you sit on it anyway.
If the kid is vegetarian, or on some other non-normal diet, a doctors note is not only required, but a nutrition plan must accompany it.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It is very easy to eat a balanced diet as a vegetarian. All the hype about not getting enough protein is simply that, hype. I grew up a vegetarian and I never even came close to being anemic or anything close to having any kind of disease related to dietary deficiencies. I know of 10s of 1000s of other people who eat the same way and not a one of has health problems related to their diets. In fact, as a group they live about 10 years longer than the average American citizen, have much lower cancer and heart disease rates than the average, and much better overall health. They also maintain high level brain functions until very late in life. Diseases such as Alzhiemers also affect them later in life, and at a lower rate, than the national average.
The group is known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. There have been several studies done on them because of their longer life expectancy and lower rates of all diseases. Google it. You'll find out it's true. There was a PBS special done on them and the diet they follow. It aired on a local PBS station here 3 or 4 weeks ago, but I don't know when it was produced.
Oops. I cut off the output from whoami after giving test2.sh execute permissions, but it did run then.
Umm... No. That doesn't work on Debian.
garyk@lappy:~/scripts$ echo #!/bin/bash >test2.sh
garyk@lappy:~/scripts$ echo whoami >> test2.sh /home/garyk/scripts/test2.sh: Permission denied
garyk@lappy:~/scripts$ test2.sh
bash:
garyk@lappy:~/scripts$ chmod +x test2.sh
garyk@lappy:~/scripts$ test2.sh
I can't help it that whatever distro you're running has bypassed basic Linux security decisions, but the distro I use has not.
I understood your distinction. My response to you was tongue-in-cheek.
t is theoretically possible to build a completely secure system, from a technological standpoint. The vulnerabilities are either physical weaknesses (you could just run off with my laptop) or people.
Err, that someone running of with your laptop is a "people". So is that someone who's writing malware.
You're wrong in saying administrator access is the basic difference between Linux and Windows. The most basic difference is in default file permissions. Windows ties read and execute together by default. You put an executable on a Windows system and it's immediately executable by anyone. That is not true with Linux. Executables are only executable by default if a a system tool, such as apt-get, yum, etc... is used to install them. Otherwise, the user himself must add the execute permission to the file.
This is a huge barrier to malware spreading like many instances of Windows malware has spread. Remember all those instances of one person opening an infected email and everyone in the office being infected as a result? Can't happen on Linux due to file permissions. That executable can't execute unless/until the user gives it execute permission.
Test it for yourself. Write a script on a Linux machine and try to execute it without adding execute permissions. You can't do it. Try that on Windows and it works. No changes necessary. That's a huge difference in security.
Often times, when people who believe in natural rights start proclaiming and such-and-such is or is not within someone's rights despite whatever the law may or may not say about it, social constructivists like you start going off about "who are you to declare what is or is not a right!?", declaring the natural rights person to be egotistical or arrogant or something for thinking that their word carries more power than the collective word of the elected legislature of the society.
If the poster had simply said, "In my opinion, blah, blah, blah" that would have been one thing. The reality is that he stated over and over again, in positive declaration, that Apple didn't have the right to do something. I gave him ample opportunity to say he wasn't the claiming the right to say what Apple's rights are. I asked him several times where he got the right to say what Apple's right are. He never backed off one iota. He's the one wanting to reconstruct society with him as the definitive authority over other people's rights if the expression of their rights affect him in any way. As a programmer/developer he, more than most, should understand the importance of syntax and grammar. He stuck to his wording. He said what he meant.
My point was, if Apple wants to cut off their nose to spite their face, which is what I see them doing here, they are free to do so. It's their business, they can do what they want with it. If we don't agree, then we are free to go elsewhere with our business. We can choose to protest if we feel strongly enough about it. We don't have to respect Apple's way of doing business, but we must respect Apple's right to do business as they choose. That's the basis of true, workable, freedom for all of us. We, each of us, want our own rights to be respected, so we must respect the rights of others, or none of us end up having our rights respected. This is something I find to be worth "fighting" over.
As to the origins of our rights as men(the generic man, not the gender), I agree with the founders of our country and originators of our Declaration of Independence. Our individual rights come from our Creator, not government, nor were they found just lying around unused, and along with them I declare these rights to be self-evident truth.
Methinks you need to study the following before you begin calling me a "social constructivist" as I did nothing but echo the principles found therein. If you don't understand the foundations of our form of government, that's not my fault.
I'm glad the men who wrote that document were men who really understood human nature.
Put another way, Apple has no right to regulate the road developers take to arrive at a point, only the point that they arrive at. They are doing the former, not the latter.
Really? You are the arbiter of Apple's rights? You have the "right" to arbitrarily decide how Apple runs their own business? According to your line of reasoning I have the right to tell you how to make and spend your money.
So, from now on you cannot buy, or use, any products made by Apple, Microsoft, RedHat, Novell, Intel, AMD, NVidia, WD, Hitachi, Dell, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, any Linux distro, etc.... I've restricted your ability to use any of these products because I have arbitrarily decided that I don't like what you're doing. You now have to make your living by mowing lawns too.
Do you like my decisions about how you make, and what you can do with, your money? Does it sound just-a-tad-arrogant on my part for me to tell you what you can and can't do with your money, your resources? If it sounds stupid to you, well, that's how you sound. Thinking you have the right to tell someone else how to run their business is just as stupid.
You can object to what Apple does. You can decide not to support them in protest of how they do business. You can protest as much as you want. But, you can't decide what Apple's "rights" really are. You have neither the right, nor the authority, to make that proclamation. We live in a Republic, not a Soviet-style authoritarian Communist country, where we all have the ability, and the right, to choose how we live and do business, as long as it isn't illegal, and what Apple is doing isn't even close to being illegal, nor should it be. Unless, of course, you want other people to have that kind of power over your life too.
I claim a right to do what I wish with my hardware (in this specific case, machines being used for development). That's all.
Where does Apple say you can't do that sitting at your desk/table at home? What they say is you can't do that, and then distribute that software through their software channels. What gives you the "right" to say they don't have the right to control their own software distribution channel?
It still looks mighty arrogant to me.
Not everything, but no hardware manufacturer has the right to dictate what tools you may and may not use to develop on their platform.
And what makes you think you have the "right" to do as you wish with their platform? Isn't your position the pot calling the kettle black? You're claiming "rights" that don't exist the way I see it. You built nothing. You created nothing. Yet you claim a "right" to tell the creator and builder what to do with "his" own product.
Seems mighty arrogant to me.
So, your basic point is that I should have ignored the fact that post I originally replied to specifically referred to wires, and instead gone off on a rant about how evil all the telcos are.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I'm really evil for replying to a specific point in a specific post. Oh, I'm so ashamed of being so ignorant that I remained on point. Your post taught me so much I didn't already know.[/sarcasm]
They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.
If only that were true. All government agencies legislate through creating rules. Many of the freedoms we have lost have come about through bureaucratic rules.
Just where did I mention any company besides AT&T? That was the one company mentioned in the post I replied to, and they got their monopoly on phone service lines several decades ago.
I realize the games that have been played since then, but that isn't the point. If you're going to mention one specific company as an example then make it something relevant, something current. AT&Ts original lines, as well as their original equipment, are now basically irrelevant. Land(twisted pair copper) lines are dying, although there will be large parts of rural America that will be stuck using them for quite a few years. My in-laws didn't even get a party line until about 10 years ago.
You are getting close to the truth of the matter. Yes the telcos paid to put in the wires but it was subsidized in a way. It was part of a deal where AT&T would run wires to MOST[1] of the country in exchange for a monopoly.
Really? AT&T put in all the miles of fiber we now have back in the 40's? AT&Ts deal with the government was so many years ago that the lines they installed have long ago been outmoded. They were never designed to carry the amount, or type, of traffic that our modern communications systems use.
Being on Slashdot I would assume you like beavers and I would also assume you have not seen one in the wild.
That would be a false assumption. I've spent days watching all kinds of wildlife, including beaver, deer, elk, moose, coyotes, bear, badger, flying squirrels, weasels, bald eagles, osprey, various types of woodpeckers, hawks, jays, etc.... I've been within less than 50' of all of the animals I listed, in the wild, not a zoo. As a kid I spent every summer living in the mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Oregon. Most of those summers were spent 100 miles or so from the closest town.
You ignore the point that sheople can actually be coerced by a minor voice that happens to be right.
I have a question for you. How do you "coerce" someone by being right and convincing them that you are? That sounds like healthy debate/discussion in which people are open to actually listen and think about what's being said.
If you're right what you're saying is true. Why is it "coercion" to convince someone to believe truth?
I think liberals feel threatened by the idea that there might be conservative political candidates some day. But whenever it actually happens that a conservative runs for office, it' a pretty novel thing, and the conservative is cast as a weirdo.
Well, what your point shows, and it's a valid point, is that the mainstream TV news has a very liberal bias. There's no other reason the conservative candidates would be cast as weirdos on a consistent basis. Only those politically opposed to them would cast them as weirdos.
Talk radio is the last bastion of conservative thought and the progressives want to shut it down so that they would then control all the media. That's why they push a "fairness" doctrine that's anything but fair.
I do think you're going to see a big change in voting habits. Many conservatives are going to get voted into office this next election. The silent majority has been jarred into alertness with what has been happening to our country. They are going to vote, and vote in very large numbers. This is why the mainstream media is painting the tea party as racist, inciting violence, etc.... They oppose, and fear, the message and power of the political right so they slander its most visible representatives as much as possible.
Well, actually, what the fairness doctrine does is say that if there are no profitable liberal/progressive shows to broadcast then the conservative shows can't be broadcast either, or the liberal shows must be run at a loss to the station.
It's designed to keep conservative thought out of the airwaves.
Baloney. It's based on audience size. If the audience is small the show doesn't attract, or keep, sponsors. If the audience is large, it attracts, and keeps, sponsors because the sponsors want to sell their product to the largest possible audience.
The fact that the conservative shows make money means they have a large enough audience to attract and keep sponsors. No sponsor is going to support show A when they can support(advertise on) show B that has an audience 15 to 20 times larger. Thus show A gets canceled as it doesn't create enough revenue, and show B prospers and stays on the air.
The number of flying animals killed by wind farms PALES in comparison to the number killed by cars, trucks, buildings, and so on.
Yeah, but what's that compared to the ability to appear as if you really care?
You know. Strike a pose. Appear to be something. That's far more important.
Fascist economics is the wrong phrase here - it's a form of government control of the means of production for the sake (they say) of efficiency.
And Socialistic philosophy is the government control of the means of production for the sake (they say) of fairness.
Glenn Beck is correct when he says the socialists, communists, fascists, etc... belong at the same end of the political spectrum as they all advocate complete government control of everything. The total opposite of their political philosophy is anarchy, the absence of any government.
Can I think of anyone less qualified to govern than Glenn Beck? Yeah. Obama.
Every political idea has its fair chance at the podium now. If what its proponents have to say isn't something most people want to listen to, they fail to stay on the air. The government subsidizing political thought of one stripe or another is a scary thought. Be it conservative thought, progressive thought, Socialistic, Capitalistic, etc... the government has no business subsidizing it. That has no place in America.
I guess you would be for the fairness doctrine making sure the fascists, Nazis, anarchists, and all the white power groups get a "fair" hearing too. These political movements need to be subsidized to make sure they get free advertising to spread their message too, if you're really going to be "fair". If you're not in favor of that, given the position you've taken, then what you really want is the government to subsidize your personal political philosophy.
Talk radio governs? Don't make me laugh.
What you're suggesting is an even worse way to govern. Limiting political speech is against our constitution. It's against everything we, as American's, stand for, and have always stood for. It's the ultimate in government intrusion. It's an attempt at thought control by the government.