The Earth does indeed gain mass continuously from in-falling space dust, captured solar wind, etc., and as a consequence of GR, our clocks should be getting slower over time relative to distant satellites. However, I would think that the effect is not sufficient to account for the observed velocity discrepancy. I am just a lowly programmer, but I would be very surprised if those physicists have not taken this into account or discounted this accordingly.
Yes, civilized society might agree upon an at most minimal set of rights and enshrine them in law. But rights should not be defined or delimited by law. Defining what your rights are should not be a function of lawyers and judges. Defining how your rights interact with the rights of other should be the function of law and the legal system - not what those rights are.
By the way, we do have rights because we say we do. And you can say it too.
I have some problems with enshrining rights in law. One, rights are innumerable. Two, people may eventually forget that and think that the only rights they have are those enshrined in law. It makes it harder to fight injustice when you must counter arguments that the right isn't in the law so it doesn't exist. We see this happening in the US today; government lawyers arguing that Constitution doesn't ensure this or that right and therefore the government is under no requirement to respect it. Interestingly enough, this is the same argument that Madison and Jefferson had over the Bill of Rights.
What's really fun is when the wireless freaks out and takes the trackpad with it. I've had mine stop working or even reverse left to right and up to down.
It appear that I may have maligned you unjustly. I maintain that I have all the rights and should anyone attempt to violate them that I have the right to defend my rights. The government can't take your rights nor grant them; it is not theirs to give or to take. We create government; its powers come from us. The government can, most assuredly, attempt to violate your rights; it can forget why it exists. One of the reasons that I maintain that the people have all the rights is that, when the people go against the government, the weapons they use are their rights. If that fails, only then should blood be shed.
I don't think it is at all delusional to think that the people have all the rights. It is a matter of what came first, and of which is a more concrete entity: the human or the government. There is nothing mystical or divine about it. Even an amoeba has the right to strive to be alive; it is inherent in all living things.
You should be free to do as you wish, so long as it doesn't affect others. In the end, it is our responsibility to make that happen, and we are born with all the rights to justify that and all the right to exercise the power to make that happen. We need no justification other than "I am".
You may intrinsically try to do these things; keep at it and you will lose you life for it. What's your point? that rights are nothing without enforcement? I ask you again, What makes you think that good men will not enforce their rights? Your point appears to be pure mental masturbation. Perhaps, you just don't like people asserting that they have their rights. A civilized person will assert they have a right before they enforce it. E.g., see Declaration of Independence.
we grant a limited exception to monopoly laws so that... That's BS. Let me correct myself.
we withhold our right to take what we want, for a limited period of time, so that... We forgo a short-term gain for, what we hope will be, a long-term gain of more creations.
Government's do not grant rights, as they have none to give. Corporation and other fictitious entities are created by their shareholders/constituents; their rights derive from the rights of the people who created them.
The "right to be proprietary" is, indeed, a natural right. It is asserted by not sharing your creation. We, society, have deemed that sharing is good, therefore, in order to encourage it, we grant a limited exception to monopoly laws so that creators might benefit from their creations and that we might benefit from the sharing of them. Patent and copyright are not rights, they are rewards for creating and sharing.
As an aside, I think Thomas Jefferson was wrong about the right to life being natural or unalienable. It is simply too easy to lose one's life; in fact, we all will lose it eventually; and nature can take it away at any time. Moreover, you may legitimately take the life of another e.g. in self-defense. However, you definitely have a natural and unalienable right to strive to stay alive.</semantic-rant>
In the US a bunch of power brokers got together 200 years ago and decided what was and wasn't a right. Incorrect. In the US a bunch of power brokers got together 200 years ago and decided what was and wasn't a power of government.
I love it when people say things like that, it gives me a good chuckle. You do know it's completely and utterly meaningless, yes? Rights mean exactly fuck all if they're not backed up by men with guns. The governments have the most guns, so they're the only ones who can, in any practical sense at all, grant rights.
You are quite right that rights are worthless without the willingness to back them up. But what makes you think that good men are not willing to do so?
Moreover, in my country, the government's "men with guns", i.e. the army, are also citizens with guns, citizens with their own rights to protect, citizens with their own consciences; they are soldiers who can be court marshaled for obeying illegal, unjust, or immoral orders, who have sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Additionally, I would not be surprised if the US citizen's guns do not outnumber the US government's guns.
The truth is that the government has no more power than we let it have. If you believe it rightfully has the power to crush you, it will have it. If you don't believe that, it might still crush you, but if you fight back, not only have you retained your humanity, you just might beat it.
And what is the alternative? The government pushes you, and you roll over and take like a bitch? It is exactly attitudes like yours that allow the government to take powers that it was not given.
You have all the rights. If don't believe it and you don't push back against the taking of your freedoms, then you will eventually have none. There are still such things in this world as fighting the good fight, doing what's right and what's hard, taking responsibility for the way things are and will be. Be a man, not a sheep. Stand up for yourself and your rights and the rights of your fellows. Stop rolling over and taking it in the shorts.
</rant>
A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. +5 Insightful?! Are you nuts?
Governments do NOT have the power the grant rights! As a human being, YOU have all the rights. Governments (and other fictitious entities) do NOT have rights. We cede some of our rights in order to grant these entities the powers with which to carry out the duties that we created them for.
These fictitious entities exist because we created them. They have no rights, no power, nor say over what rights we have.
As would have been said in days gone by (or by me, if I were a deist/theist), our rights are granted by god/our creator. Our rights are not granted by man and certainly not by man's creation i.e. government.
What you are talking about is Trademark, not Copyright. And BMW shouldn't care less if you build soapbox racers and brand them "BMW", as soapbox racers are not automobiles, and BMW doesn't market soapbox racers. Different markets = Different trademarks.
Slashdot Mirror
The Earth does indeed gain mass continuously from in-falling space dust, captured solar wind, etc., and as a consequence of GR, our clocks should be getting slower over time relative to distant satellites. However, I would think that the effect is not sufficient to account for the observed velocity discrepancy. I am just a lowly programmer, but I would be very surprised if those physicists have not taken this into account or discounted this accordingly.
Amen to that brother. OpenDoc rocked.
Bravo! You made me smile!
Yes, civilized society might agree upon an at most minimal set of rights and enshrine them in law. But rights should not be defined or delimited by law. Defining what your rights are should not be a function of lawyers and judges. Defining how your rights interact with the rights of other should be the function of law and the legal system - not what those rights are.
By the way, we do have rights because we say we do. And you can say it too.
I have some problems with enshrining rights in law. One, rights are innumerable. Two, people may eventually forget that and think that the only rights they have are those enshrined in law. It makes it harder to fight injustice when you must counter arguments that the right isn't in the law so it doesn't exist. We see this happening in the US today; government lawyers arguing that Constitution doesn't ensure this or that right and therefore the government is under no requirement to respect it. Interestingly enough, this is the same argument that Madison and Jefferson had over the Bill of Rights.
What's really fun is when the wireless freaks out and takes the trackpad with it. I've had mine stop working or even reverse left to right and up to down.
It appear that I may have maligned you unjustly. I maintain that I have all the rights and should anyone attempt to violate them that I have the right to defend my rights. The government can't take your rights nor grant them; it is not theirs to give or to take. We create government; its powers come from us. The government can, most assuredly, attempt to violate your rights; it can forget why it exists. One of the reasons that I maintain that the people have all the rights is that, when the people go against the government, the weapons they use are their rights. If that fails, only then should blood be shed.
I don't think it is at all delusional to think that the people have all the rights. It is a matter of what came first, and of which is a more concrete entity: the human or the government. There is nothing mystical or divine about it. Even an amoeba has the right to strive to be alive; it is inherent in all living things.
You should be free to do as you wish, so long as it doesn't affect others. In the end, it is our responsibility to make that happen, and we are born with all the rights to justify that and all the right to exercise the power to make that happen. We need no justification other than "I am".
You may intrinsically try to do these things; keep at it and you will lose you life for it. What's your point? that rights are nothing without enforcement? I ask you again, What makes you think that good men will not enforce their rights? Your point appears to be pure mental masturbation. Perhaps, you just don't like people asserting that they have their rights. A civilized person will assert they have a right before they enforce it. E.g., see Declaration of Independence.
we withhold our right to take what we want, for a limited period of time, so that
Government's do not grant rights, as they have none to give. Corporation and other fictitious entities are created by their shareholders/constituents; their rights derive from the rights of the people who created them.
The "right to be proprietary" is, indeed, a natural right. It is asserted by not sharing your creation. We, society, have deemed that sharing is good, therefore, in order to encourage it, we grant a limited exception to monopoly laws so that creators might benefit from their creations and that we might benefit from the sharing of them. Patent and copyright are not rights, they are rewards for creating and sharing.
As an aside, I think Thomas Jefferson was wrong about the right to life being natural or unalienable. It is simply too easy to lose one's life; in fact, we all will lose it eventually; and nature can take it away at any time. Moreover, you may legitimately take the life of another e.g. in self-defense. However, you definitely have a natural and unalienable right to strive to stay alive.</semantic-rant>
In the US a bunch of power brokers got together 200 years ago and decided what was and wasn't a power of government.
There, fixed it for you.
You are quite right that rights are worthless without the willingness to back them up. But what makes you think that good men are not willing to do so?
Moreover, in my country, the government's "men with guns", i.e. the army, are also citizens with guns, citizens with their own rights to protect, citizens with their own consciences; they are soldiers who can be court marshaled for obeying illegal, unjust, or immoral orders, who have sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Additionally, I would not be surprised if the US citizen's guns do not outnumber the US government's guns.
The truth is that the government has no more power than we let it have. If you believe it rightfully has the power to crush you, it will have it. If you don't believe that, it might still crush you, but if you fight back, not only have you retained your humanity, you just might beat it.
And what is the alternative? The government pushes you, and you roll over and take like a bitch? It is exactly attitudes like yours that allow the government to take powers that it was not given.
You have all the rights. If don't believe it and you don't push back against the taking of your freedoms, then you will eventually have none. There are still such things in this world as fighting the good fight, doing what's right and what's hard, taking responsibility for the way things are and will be. Be a man, not a sheep. Stand up for yourself and your rights and the rights of your fellows. Stop rolling over and taking it in the shorts.
</rant>
These fictitious entities exist because we created them. They have no rights, no power, nor say over what rights we have. As would have been said in days gone by (or by me, if I were a deist/theist), our rights are granted by god/our creator. Our rights are not granted by man and certainly not by man's creation i.e. government.
What you are talking about is Trademark, not Copyright. And BMW shouldn't care less if you build soapbox racers and brand them "BMW", as soapbox racers are not automobiles, and BMW doesn't market soapbox racers. Different markets = Different trademarks.
I wonder which sort of loonies brings us this "study", the novelty-haters or the everything-good-is-bad-for-you crowd.
We are all going to die! ... eventually... some day.