The only way to make sure that the government will be held to its Constitutional limits is by making the Constitution completely immutable, otherwise lobbyists can make legislation possible to extend government power again, to the point of Constitutional amendments even.
The Constitution was never meant to be immutable; the founders recognized they couldn't foresee every legal, social, or historical problem that would ever come along. If you make it so you can't change it, you'll be changing it.
The only thing to do to prevent problems like this is to hold our federal government to its Constitutional limits. There is only ONE political party that believes in a limited federal system, and that is the Libertarian party.
So? I like an expanded federal government. Keeps the states honest.
Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off. This isn't grade schoool and everything has a price in the real world. Freedom from the creeping tyranny of terrorism, though -- teaching those people that this is NOT the way to make friends and influence people -- requires some struggle and loss.
The problem is that every side in the middle east; us, the Palestinians, the Taliban, the Israelis, ALL of them-- are convinced that if they just hit the other side hard enough they'll fold. It just keeps the violence going, though. Look at Israel. They retaliate, their enemies retaliate, they retaliate back, it keeps going. The only way I think we can get some measure of security is to
a) hit bin Laden and his organizations, and similiar groups, because they fund and train these terrorist networks. With them out of the picture the will to terrorism may still be there, but actually carrying it out will be harder.
b) actually engage the Arab world in something other than warfare. As long as Afghanistan is in a state of near anarchy, and the threat of perpetual starvation hangs over it, terrorist groups are going to have a ready pool of applicants. If you want to overthrow the Taliban, fine. But don't leave another void so another Taliban will come to power. Build up infrastructure, create some sort of economy. Hell, turn over governance of the region to Pakistan if you can't think of anything else, with promises of financial support if they'll prevent terrorist groups from reforming. Don't think bombs will dissuade anything; these people have been living in a state of anarchy for 150 years, nothing we can do to them will be anything new.
The OJ trial was the #1 story of EVERY news broadcast, EVERY DAY for about 2 years. Half of every broadcast was dedicated to OJ, it seemed. I used to think that was an LA thing, but people tell me it was the same way all over the country. You guys must remember this... it was insane how much coverage there was. If you used a TV or radio you could not escape
But the coverage wasn't like this; full-time news coverage with no commercials. I live in NYC, and every local network is the same way, with full-time news, and no commercials. The OJ trial wasn't anything like this.
President Bush wasn't hiding or fleeing. He was doing his job: managing the country's business in the best possible manner. Just because the mayor of a city was brave and/or foolish enough to endanger his own life doesn't mean the President of a nation has that luxury. Losing so many thousands of individuals is terrible enough; having to attempt to manage that response and simultaneously transition power to a new President because the last one got himself killed is infinitely more so.
I'm not going to make any judgement about this; I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The criticism that has come from the press seems to be (as far as I can tell from the press conferences) because the White House has been evasive as to the exact nature of the threat against the White House and Air Force One, with the flight plan of the Pentagon plane making it seem somewhat in doubt that it was aimed at the White House. Ari Fleischer also has a tendency to snap at reporters, which in times of high stress causes some measure of hostility. Personally, as a New Yorker I was more concerned about where the mayor and fire and police leaders were than the president, so it doesn't matter to me where he went.
Where would we be if Linus looked at the market share of MS/Novell (10 years ago), and said, "Screw it - whats the point? It'll never be that widely used."
We'd probably be using FreeBSD. Or minix. Or HURD would probably be mature by now if linux wasn't around.
Secondly, if there was only one car maker, people would, as you say, get tired of mediocrity and look for alternatives, because they'd have a definite gauge: the tires keep blowing out, the brakes always squeek, etc. But people don't have the same gauges with PC's. Locked up? I did something wrong. Too slow? Time to buy a new PC. I doubt anyone ever blames the OS at all (if they even know what an OS is.) No gauge=no demand for change. Scary...
Actually, if there was only one car maker people wouldn't have any alternatives. Tires blow out? Brakes lock? Well, that's just what cars do. Nothing else to compare them to.
The problem is the inconsistency still exists. The first clause, regarding the well-regulated militia, is preparatory language; the second clause, ``the right of the people'', is the operative language. to uphold, and as such, if the preparatory language is considered to be operative language, we wind up with another inconsistency problem.
But that begs the question of why the preparatory clause was included in the first place, if not to modify the operative clause. None of the other original amendments have similiar wording.
Anyway, I agree with the reasons you put forward, I was simply was pointing out that it can be interpreted in other ways. The ACLU's views are more moderate than the posts here might indicate; they have no objection to moderate, regulated gun use.
... their explanation is a load of hooey, as any first-year law student can point out. The problem rests in the usage of the word ``the people''. According to the ACLU, ``the people'' in the Second Amendment refers to a collective right held by the State, not an individual right held by the people.
And I can simply point out that "the people" in that single instance might indeed refer to a collective right, simply because it is prefaced by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Out of the necessity to maintain the state's security, the people can collectively possess firearms, as part of a regulated militia. Now note I didn't say I agreed with the ACLU-- I simply pointed out that they didn't "ignore" the 2nd amendment, they simply interpreted it differently than you (or I) do.
It would be too hard, and too politically unpopular, to defend the Second Amendment. So they don't.
I think even many of their detractors would admit that the ACLU has no problem defending unpopular viewpoints, i.e. flag burning or the anti-death penalty movement. Besides which, as much as the pro-gun movement tries to make themselves out to be the underdog, almost half the people in this country own guns. Not exactly an oppressed minority.
Those of you who are ACLU supporters should take careful note of this.
What? That they haven't immediately jumped on this case? The constant attacks against the ACLU by extreme right-wingers on slashdot can easily be countered by actually looking at the ACLU web site, as you suggest.
Do a search for "DVD" on the web site. Seem to be risking their "gravy train" there, eh?
Courage is standing up to tanks in Tianenmen Square. Courage is entering a burning building to rescue a child. Courage is not installing a second operating system on your computer.
it's free, right? then why not just display the friggin thing for all to see?
I guess they want to get something out of it, and a basic idea of who their customers are is something. My philosophy is, if I were to subscribe to them I'd have to give them my name and address, plus some money. This way I get the same thing, without having to spend money.
nytimes isn't worth the effort to sign up for an account. they think they can afford to piss off people? i hope they go bankruptcy
I really hope they don't; if they did that would mean the parent company, and the print edition would go out of business as well. And the New York Times, whatever it's faults, is still the best paper in the world.
How will you feel if security drags you into a backroom and starts questioning you about the book they know you stole two months ago? Luckily the software is perfect so that won't happen.
I'll refuse to come, then insist they call the police if they want to detain me. Then I'll sue them.
Just wait until you are kicked out of a retail store, cause the computer says you are a shoplifter. My solution is a simple one. I won't be shopping at Borders anymore.
My solution's even simpler; I just won't shoplift at Border's.
Actually, I thought it was. I could think of few concepts of a deity more appealing than the charming personality exibited by Morissette's God. This was not making fun of God, it was saying warmly, 'Wouldn't it be nice if God were like this?'
I found her totally lacking in charm myself. Kind of a dumb idea, though the director seemed delighted with his own cleverness here.
Quite a difference from the usual stern, harsh, bearded authority figure.
I wasn't particularly insulted, but I think a supreme deity with a little dignity would have been better. You have all these people who have gone through a terrible ordeal, and a God who doesn't really seem to realize or care what happened.
I also doubt the judge possesses the clearance required to evaluate it himself, so no one may be able to evaluate it's accuracy.
The FBI won't be able to pull a "you're not cleared for that" on a federal judge. If he asks for it, they either give it to him, drop the charges, or try to appeal to a higher court.
That seems to be a common response by defense attorneys in cases like this; demand classified information, then when it's not provided get the charges reduced or dismissed. Fortunately judges have learned that "just trust us" from US intelligence agencies isn't a valid basis to take someone's rights away.
If you're saying that Microsoft shouldn't be able to create a subscription based service, then I'd say the govenment shouldn't be directing the path that technology takes.
They wouldn't be; they'd be directing the path that Microsoft takes. The lumping together of MS and "technology" is what the MS propaganda has been doing for years. Don't let them build.net, but let Sun or Oracle or Netscape or whoever wants to do it do it.
But what fun is a remedy that doesn't hurt? I wanna see blood!
Exactly! I don't really care too much about how the eventual ruling will affect the market, I just want to see the upper echelons at MS get what's coming to them.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to make sure that the government will be held to its Constitutional limits is by making the Constitution completely immutable, otherwise lobbyists can make legislation possible to extend government power again, to the point of Constitutional amendments even.
The Constitution was never meant to be immutable; the founders recognized they couldn't foresee every legal, social, or historical problem that would ever come along. If you make it so you can't change it, you'll be changing it.
The only thing to do to prevent problems like this is to hold our federal government to its Constitutional limits. There is only ONE political party that believes in a limited federal system, and that is the Libertarian party.
So? I like an expanded federal government. Keeps the states honest.
Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off. This isn't grade schoool and everything has a price in the real world. Freedom from the creeping tyranny of terrorism, though -- teaching those people that this is NOT the way to make friends and influence people -- requires some struggle and loss.
The problem is that every side in the middle east; us, the Palestinians, the Taliban, the Israelis, ALL of them-- are convinced that if they just hit the other side hard enough they'll fold. It just keeps the violence going, though. Look at Israel. They retaliate, their enemies retaliate, they retaliate back, it keeps going. The only way I think we can get some measure of security is to
a) hit bin Laden and his organizations, and similiar groups, because they fund and train these terrorist networks. With them out of the picture the will to terrorism may still be there, but actually carrying it out will be harder.
b) actually engage the Arab world in something other than warfare. As long as Afghanistan is in a state of near anarchy, and the threat of perpetual starvation hangs over it, terrorist groups are going to have a ready pool of applicants. If you want to overthrow the Taliban, fine. But don't leave another void so another Taliban will come to power. Build up infrastructure, create some sort of economy. Hell, turn over governance of the region to Pakistan if you can't think of anything else, with promises of financial support if they'll prevent terrorist groups from reforming. Don't think bombs will dissuade anything; these people have been living in a state of anarchy for 150 years, nothing we can do to them will be anything new.
The OJ trial was the #1 story of EVERY news broadcast, EVERY DAY for about 2 years. Half of every broadcast was dedicated to OJ, it seemed. I used to think that was an LA thing, but people tell me it was the same way all over the country. You guys must remember this... it was insane how much coverage there was. If you used a TV or radio you could not escape
But the coverage wasn't like this; full-time news coverage with no commercials. I live in NYC, and every local network is the same way, with full-time news, and no commercials. The OJ trial wasn't anything like this.
President Bush wasn't hiding or fleeing. He was doing his job: managing the country's business in the best possible manner. Just because the mayor of a city was brave and/or foolish enough to endanger his own life doesn't mean the President of a nation has that luxury. Losing so many thousands of individuals is terrible enough; having to attempt to manage that response and simultaneously transition power to a new President because the last one got himself killed is infinitely more so.
I'm not going to make any judgement about this; I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The criticism that has come from the press seems to be (as far as I can tell from the press conferences) because the White House has been evasive as to the exact nature of the threat against the White House and Air Force One, with the flight plan of the Pentagon plane making it seem somewhat in doubt that it was aimed at the White House. Ari Fleischer also has a tendency to snap at reporters, which in times of high stress causes some measure of hostility. Personally, as a New Yorker I was more concerned about where the mayor and fire and police leaders were than the president, so it doesn't matter to me where he went.
Where would we be if Linus looked at the market share of MS/Novell (10 years ago), and said, "Screw it - whats the point? It'll never be that widely used."
We'd probably be using FreeBSD. Or minix. Or HURD would probably be mature by now if linux wasn't around.
Secondly, if there was only one car maker, people would, as you say, get tired of mediocrity and look for alternatives, because they'd have a definite gauge: the tires keep blowing out, the brakes always squeek, etc. But people don't have the same gauges with PC's. Locked up? I did something wrong. Too slow? Time to buy a new PC. I doubt anyone ever blames the OS at all (if they even know what an OS is.) No gauge=no demand for change. Scary...
Actually, if there was only one car maker people wouldn't have any alternatives. Tires blow out? Brakes lock? Well, that's just what cars do. Nothing else to compare them to.
So this is only a problem with online reviews? come on.. When you've got Sony hiring movie reviewers for print?
Actually Sony just fabricates them, it's much cheaper.
The problem is the inconsistency still exists. The first clause, regarding the well-regulated militia, is preparatory language; the second clause, ``the right of the people'', is the operative language. to uphold, and as such, if the preparatory language is considered to be operative language, we wind up with another inconsistency problem.
But that begs the question of why the preparatory clause was included in the first place, if not to modify the operative clause. None of the other original amendments have similiar wording.
Anyway, I agree with the reasons you put forward, I was simply was pointing out that it can be interpreted in other ways. The ACLU's views are more moderate than the posts here might indicate; they have no objection to moderate, regulated gun use.
... their explanation is a load of hooey, as any first-year law student can point out. The problem rests in the usage of the word ``the people''. According to the ACLU, ``the people'' in the Second Amendment refers to a collective right held by the State, not an individual right held by the people.
And I can simply point out that "the people" in that single instance might indeed refer to a collective right, simply because it is prefaced by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Out of the necessity to maintain the state's security, the people can collectively possess firearms, as part of a regulated militia. Now note I didn't say I agreed with the ACLU-- I simply pointed out that they didn't "ignore" the 2nd amendment, they simply interpreted it differently than you (or I) do.
It would be too hard, and too politically unpopular, to defend the Second Amendment. So they don't.
I think even many of their detractors would admit that the ACLU has no problem defending unpopular viewpoints, i.e. flag burning or the anti-death penalty movement. Besides which, as much as the pro-gun movement tries to make themselves out to be the underdog, almost half the people in this country own guns. Not exactly an oppressed minority.
They don't "ignore" the second amendment; they state their viewpoint and philosophical justification for that viewpoint.
Check this out if you want to read it.
Those of you who are ACLU supporters should take careful note of this.
What? That they haven't immediately jumped on this case? The constant attacks against the ACLU by extreme right-wingers on slashdot can easily be countered by actually looking at the ACLU web site, as you suggest.
Do a search for "DVD" on the web site. Seem to be risking their "gravy train" there, eh?
Then you put something else on it. It's not like it's going to be unhackable; you'll get a pretty powerful computer for below cost.
You can really screw microsoft by buying an xbox, then not buying any games so they miss out on the licensing fees.
the know-how or courage to make an OS change.
Courage is standing up to tanks in Tianenmen Square. Courage is entering a burning building to rescue a child. Courage is not installing a second operating system on your computer.
Or just create a cylindrical craft with spin. Of course NASA isn't exactly known for thinking outside the box...
it's free, right? then why not just display the friggin thing for all to see?
I guess they want to get something out of it, and a basic idea of who their customers are is something. My philosophy is, if I were to subscribe to them I'd have to give them my name and address, plus some money. This way I get the same thing, without having to spend money.
nytimes isn't worth the effort to sign up for an account. they think they can afford to piss off people? i hope they go bankruptcy
I really hope they don't; if they did that would mean the parent company, and the print edition would go out of business as well. And the New York Times, whatever it's faults, is still the best paper in the world.
How will you feel if security drags you into a backroom and starts questioning you about the book they know you stole two months ago? Luckily the software is perfect so that won't happen.
I'll refuse to come, then insist they call the police if they want to detain me. Then I'll sue them.
It's quite easy to obtain an nytimes account you know.
Just wait until you are kicked out of a retail store, cause the computer says you are a shoplifter. My solution is a simple one. I won't be shopping at Borders anymore.
My solution's even simpler; I just won't shoplift at Border's.
Actually, I thought it was. I could think of few concepts of a deity more appealing than the charming personality exibited by Morissette's God. This was not making fun of God, it was saying warmly, 'Wouldn't it be nice if God were like this?'
I found her totally lacking in charm myself. Kind of a dumb idea, though the director seemed delighted with his own cleverness here.
Quite a difference from the usual stern, harsh, bearded authority figure.
I wasn't particularly insulted, but I think a supreme deity with a little dignity would have been better. You have all these people who have gone through a terrible ordeal, and a God who doesn't really seem to realize or care what happened.
I also doubt the judge possesses the clearance required to evaluate it himself, so no one may be able to evaluate it's accuracy.
The FBI won't be able to pull a "you're not cleared for that" on a federal judge. If he asks for it, they either give it to him, drop the charges, or try to appeal to a higher court.
That seems to be a common response by defense attorneys in cases like this; demand classified information, then when it's not provided get the charges reduced or dismissed. Fortunately judges have learned that "just trust us" from US intelligence agencies isn't a valid basis to take someone's rights away.
If you're saying that Microsoft shouldn't be able to create a subscription based service, then I'd say the govenment shouldn't be directing the path that technology takes.
They wouldn't be; they'd be directing the path that Microsoft takes. The lumping together of MS and "technology" is what the MS propaganda has been doing for years. Don't let them build
But what fun is a remedy that doesn't hurt? I wanna see blood!
Exactly! I don't really care too much about how the eventual ruling will affect the market, I just want to see the upper echelons at MS get what's coming to them.