I'm with you on OS/2 2.0's technical superiority over Win 3.1 and Win 9x. A true 32-bit OS, real multitasking, real multithreading, real memory protection, etc.
My employer at the time had Windows and Macintosh versions of our app. We considered an OS/2 2.0 port. However the Windows version ran so damn well on OS/2 that there was really no point. Even a few customers who were interested in an OS/2 version conceded that and understood.
Oh yes it did. I'm guessing you're just too young to remember. Thanks to massive os/2 tv campaigns, "normal" people suddenly wanted a computer, not just a console to play games on
Perhaps you are thinking of PS/2, the computer, a followup to the IBM PC?
OS/2 was an operating system and few people used its 16-bit 1.x incarnation. Microsoft was IBM's partner is OS/2 development. Microsoft tried to get people to move from MS-DOS to OS/2 1.x and failed. They then thought what the hell lets deliver that OS/2 1.x Presentation Manager GUI as a layer on top of MS-DOS. We'll call it MS Windows. OK, that was a little simplified yet basically accurate.
MS Windows was meant to be a stop gap, something temporary until users could be migrated to OS/2 from MS-DOS. Microsoft touted how compatible the APIs were, how easy it would be to port your Windows code to OS/2. It actually kind of was. However MS Windows really took off in popularity and MS rethought things, thought they might go it alone. IBM was working on the 32-bit Intel specific OS/2 2.0 and in parallel MS was working on the cross platforms successor version of OS/2, OS/2 NT. OS/2 NT got renamed Windows NT when MS and IBM "divorced".
OS/2 2.0 shipped, did a little better than 1.x but still it was a very minor player. MS successfully FUD'd OS/2 2.0 and got most users to wait just a little bit longer for Windows 95. Failing to deliver OS/2 development tools helped as well, delaying the availability of native apps.
So, no. No matter how many OS/2 TV commercials IBM ran it did not drive many people to OS/2.
Note where Apple collects the stats from.... the app store. It stands to reason that users with older hardware are probably less active users and will be under represented.
Google's stats (Android Dashboard) come from the Google Play Store. According to their numbers targeting Android 4.0 gets you 59% of the Android market. Of course that ignores Amazon Kindle Fires and other devices that don't use the Google Play store. Many of those Kindles are stuck at Android 2.3.
It's the same with targeting Android 4.0.x as the baseline. You will hit 75% of the Android market.
Not really. According to the Google Android Dashboard of June 3 targeting Android 4.0.x will get you 59% of the Android market.
Plus, that number is a bit of an overstatement. It only considers those who visit the Google Play Store. So a lot of Amazon Kindle Fires are not being counted. Many of those Kindles are stuck at Android 2.3.3.
With the trial of Private Manning underway, and Snowden now indicted, it looks like it will be a summer full of heated discussion.
Here is a discussion topic that seems to be somewhat overlooked at the moment.
Why did a low ranking army private like Manning have access to the high level info that he leaked? Why did a low level private contractor like Snowden have access to the high level info that he leaked? Sure an army private or low level contractor may need access to some secret info to do their jobs but both seem to have had access to or knowledge of way too much.
Virtually all of his findings are traced to differences in date and time and chosen compiler settings and compiler vintage.
Unless he can find large blocks of inserted code (not merely data segment differences) he is complaining about nothing.
Using sub-projects is a common problem. Consider a project A that builds upon independent projects B and C. A, B and C are independently developed by three different developers. The source to all three are publicly hosted. A's available source does not include B and C's source, rather it has a link to their respective repositories. A reasonable thing to do.
The problem comes in that daily snapshots of B and C that A used to build his binary are not know tags or otherwise identified. Happens all the time. Even in projects from Google itself.
Seriously? In a large scale disaster (hurricane, earthquake, etc) you would be irritated by getting a free text telling you...[whatever]
Why should he need to explain his reasons to you (or to anyone)? If he doesn't want to receive such a message on his phone, why shouldn't he be able to block or reject it? You'd rather force the message on him because you think it's a good idea, even if he doesn't?
How is asking "why?" forcing anyone to do anything?
In a large scale disaster (hurricane, earthquake, etc) you would be irritated by getting a free text telling you where emergency relief (shelter, blankets, food, water) may be found?
They generally don't tell you that. You have to watch the news and listen to other radio programming to find where the shelters are.
Its a new system that is inherently a highly localized broadcast (cell tower to phone). Its a bit of an assumption to assume that it will provide no more info than legacy systems. Especially given that in the previous upgrade (EBS to EAS ?) they seem to have tried to add county based localization, as you point out. I think there is a fair chance at finer grained localization given the technologies involved.
I missed the part where the delete button was disabled, and there was a quiz to determine that you had in fact read the text message prior to deletion.:-)
Excellent reply to anyone complaining about spam in general.
Viagra ads can be perfectly justified, because there's still a delete button:)
We are discussing a mechanism by which a text message can be sent during a Presidentially recognized state of emergency. That seems a little different from from standard email. When the President starts sending out Viagra ads I'll give your point more credence.:-)
if the Government speaks and one has a WEA-enabled device, one must listen like a good little citizen!
I missed the part where the delete button was disabled, and there was a quiz to determine that you had in fact read the text message prior to deletion.:-)
the words âoepersonâ and âoewhoeverâ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
(1 U.S.C. Â1)
You left out the part that says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise".
In short, this is a mechanism by which organizations are subject to the same laws and regulations that individuals are. The qualification of "context" is quite important here. With respect to rights context would determine what would also apply to organizations and would would exclusively apply to individuals. Speech is merely an activity that by context applies to both individuals and organizations.
Seriously? In a large scale disaster (hurricane, earthquake, etc) you would be irritated by getting a free text telling you where emergency relief (shelter, blankets, food, water) may be found? In tornado country you would be irritated by getting a free text warning you of weather conditions that may indicate tornado formation?
People keep saying " look at the Monsanto Protection legislation," but pretty much no one actually looks at it.
What they really mean to say is look at this particular proponent's / opponent's spin on the legislation. I have not read the Monsanto legislation, I'm quite open to it being a travesty, but I did read (well much of it, skimmed some) the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Nowhere did it say that corporations are people, that phrase was coined by the opponents of the decision as a wonderfully successful attempt at framing, manufacturing a narrative. What the decision actually said was that groups of people have the same speech rights as an individual person and it does not matter if that group is a corporation, a labor union, an advocacy group, an activist group, etc.
Well, I tend to think people go overboard with the whole private enterprise / government debate... because corporations have no ethics or morals other than the profit motive - all other things and people are secondary
You just went overboard. Corporations have the ethics and morals of its leadership. Some are both ethical and moral, not purely guided by the profit motive. In my personal experience where I witnessed such leadership the company (a publicly traded company with billions in revenue) was still run by its founders, not by professional management installed by venture capital. I suspect this is a major contributing factor.
And if you notice, a lot of the whining coming from the corporate class is about too much regulation. Not a coincidence.
That is clearly not the case. Have you spent a significant amount of time around small business? Admittedly I don't consider small business owners to be "corporate class", I think my exclusion is fair.
Been to a protest? Lots of people's free speech rights are impinged upon. In at least one case, a few busloads worth.
5 buses let through. 13 diverted to an alternate location two miles away. Yep that is certainly on par with being sent to a Siberian gulag for political dissent.
For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
Read up on the Stalin era. Even later Soviet leaders were disgusted.
While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country.
And in the odd perverse mathematics of war may have saved lives compared to blockade and starvation or invasion and mass casualties by conventional weapons. The simple fact was that Truman was expecting 500,000 American dead and 5 million Japanese dead if the war continued through conventional means. The atomic bombings were a tragedy, the problem is that the other options may have been far worse. A classic negative-negative decision, all your likely options are bad.
The casualties from mass fire bombings in Tokyo were comparable to an atomic bombing. Read Eugene Sledge's "With The Old Breed" for an account of the fighting on Okinawa. President Truman had such accounts in his mind when he made the decision. Also note that civilian casualties on Okinawa were comparable to an atomic bombing. I realize it is popular today to say that Japan was going to surrender anyway but the historical facts are that the surrender after the atomic bombings and after the emperor's decision nearly failed when a military coup was attempted. The plotter's had to "rescue" the emperor from the bad advice his ministers were providing and prevent his surrender message from going out. We have no idea what would have happened without the atomic bombings, imminent surrender is hardly a foregone conclusion. Again, Truman faced a negative-negative decision, he had no good option, rather one option that may produce fewer casualties (military and civilian) than the others.
We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.
Agreed, terrible.
We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism."
Seriously? This is some great and terrible crime?
We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.
McCarthy was a buffoon. The anti-communist witch hunts wrong. But you are making my point for me. These witch hunts were nothing like those under the Soviets. Read up on Soviet gulags.
We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them.
Decoded 1944 Soviet cables confirmed Julius worked for the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that they helped accelerate the Soviet atomic bomb program. Various Soviet officials eventually confirmed that Julius was a wartime spy.
They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.
Primary source or merely a secondary confirmatory source, large contribution or small contribution, its still wartime espionage. Was the penalty excessive, perhaps, but executing a wartime spy is hardly in the same category as executing those who disagree with a government policy, as we saw in large scale during the Stalin era. Again, you are merely confirming the US and Soviet governments were nothing alike. No one is claiming the US government was without flaws and mistakes, just nowhere near the Soviet level. Enlightened leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev were the exception not the rule.
Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.
There was a great Russian writer, who emigrated from the Soviet Union, who used to say: 'Communists I hate the most. But the ones which I hate even more are the anti-communists'.
Karl Marx would probably not have considered the Soviet state to be a Communist state. Dictators and zealots come in both far left and far right flavors, merely different sides of the same coin.
I certainly agree with your point. But if the former Soviets you know don't live there anymore, it is a self-selected sample of people who disliked it enough to leave.
Good point. However given the disparity between the number of people who desired to leave the Soviet system for the west and the number of people who desired to leave the west for the Soviet system, I'd say the above group represents a valid appraisal. Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.
I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe.
The people I know who lived under the Soviet regime vehemently disagree with such revisionism. For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
The microcomputer revolution that Woz was a significant contributor to was in part a movement against the "cloud" of that day, remote minicomputers and mainframes where your software and your data lived. One of the goals of the microcomputer revolution was to have your software and your data on your computer on your desk.
If we were to have a second revolution in the spirit of the preceding perhaps we would have our own "cloud" servers hosted on our own IP address at home, offering ubiquitous access to all of our computers and devices and syncing between them. Again, all your data being hosted on your server on your desk (or in the corner or the closet).
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938,
at 941.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach
a fee to it.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in
the right with impunity.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Byars v. US, 273 US 28
Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you on OS/2 2.0's technical superiority over Win 3.1 and Win 9x. A true 32-bit OS, real multitasking, real multithreading, real memory protection, etc.
My employer at the time had Windows and Macintosh versions of our app. We considered an OS/2 2.0 port. However the Windows version ran so damn well on OS/2 that there was really no point. Even a few customers who were interested in an OS/2 version conceded that and understood.
Nooks can now access the Google Play store, B&N added that recently.
Oh yes it did. I'm guessing you're just too young to remember. Thanks to massive os/2 tv campaigns, "normal" people suddenly wanted a computer, not just a console to play games on
Perhaps you are thinking of PS/2, the computer, a followup to the IBM PC?
OS/2 was an operating system and few people used its 16-bit 1.x incarnation. Microsoft was IBM's partner is OS/2 development. Microsoft tried to get people to move from MS-DOS to OS/2 1.x and failed. They then thought what the hell lets deliver that OS/2 1.x Presentation Manager GUI as a layer on top of MS-DOS. We'll call it MS Windows. OK, that was a little simplified yet basically accurate.
MS Windows was meant to be a stop gap, something temporary until users could be migrated to OS/2 from MS-DOS. Microsoft touted how compatible the APIs were, how easy it would be to port your Windows code to OS/2. It actually kind of was. However MS Windows really took off in popularity and MS rethought things, thought they might go it alone. IBM was working on the 32-bit Intel specific OS/2 2.0 and in parallel MS was working on the cross platforms successor version of OS/2, OS/2 NT. OS/2 NT got renamed Windows NT when MS and IBM "divorced".
OS/2 2.0 shipped, did a little better than 1.x but still it was a very minor player. MS successfully FUD'd OS/2 2.0 and got most users to wait just a little bit longer for Windows 95. Failing to deliver OS/2 development tools helped as well, delaying the availability of native apps.
So, no. No matter how many OS/2 TV commercials IBM ran it did not drive many people to OS/2.
Note where Apple collects the stats from.... the app store. It stands to reason that users with older hardware are probably less active users and will be under represented.
Google's stats (Android Dashboard) come from the Google Play Store. According to their numbers targeting Android 4.0 gets you 59% of the Android market. Of course that ignores Amazon Kindle Fires and other devices that don't use the Google Play store. Many of those Kindles are stuck at Android 2.3.
It's the same with targeting Android 4.0.x as the baseline. You will hit 75% of the Android market.
Not really. According to the Google Android Dashboard of June 3 targeting Android 4.0.x will get you 59% of the Android market.
Plus, that number is a bit of an overstatement. It only considers those who visit the Google Play Store. So a lot of Amazon Kindle Fires are not being counted. Many of those Kindles are stuck at Android 2.3.3.
With the trial of Private Manning underway, and Snowden now indicted, it looks like it will be a summer full of heated discussion.
Here is a discussion topic that seems to be somewhat overlooked at the moment.
Why did a low ranking army private like Manning have access to the high level info that he leaked? Why did a low level private contractor like Snowden have access to the high level info that he leaked? Sure an army private or low level contractor may need access to some secret info to do their jobs but both seem to have had access to or knowledge of way too much.
Virtually all of his findings are traced to differences in date and time and chosen compiler settings and compiler vintage. Unless he can find large blocks of inserted code (not merely data segment differences) he is complaining about nothing.
Using sub-projects is a common problem. Consider a project A that builds upon independent projects B and C. A, B and C are independently developed by three different developers. The source to all three are publicly hosted. A's available source does not include B and C's source, rather it has a link to their respective repositories. A reasonable thing to do.
The problem comes in that daily snapshots of B and C that A used to build his binary are not know tags or otherwise identified. Happens all the time. Even in projects from Google itself.
Seriously? In a large scale disaster (hurricane, earthquake, etc) you would be irritated by getting a free text telling you...[whatever]
Why should he need to explain his reasons to you (or to anyone)? If he doesn't want to receive such a message on his phone, why shouldn't he be able to block or reject it? You'd rather force the message on him because you think it's a good idea, even if he doesn't?
How is asking "why?" forcing anyone to do anything?
In a large scale disaster (hurricane, earthquake, etc) you would be irritated by getting a free text telling you where emergency relief (shelter, blankets, food, water) may be found?
They generally don't tell you that. You have to watch the news and listen to other radio programming to find where the shelters are.
Its a new system that is inherently a highly localized broadcast (cell tower to phone). Its a bit of an assumption to assume that it will provide no more info than legacy systems. Especially given that in the previous upgrade (EBS to EAS ?) they seem to have tried to add county based localization, as you point out. I think there is a fair chance at finer grained localization given the technologies involved.
I missed the part where the delete button was disabled, and there was a quiz to determine that you had in fact read the text message prior to deletion. :-)
Excellent reply to anyone complaining about spam in general. Viagra ads can be perfectly justified, because there's still a delete button :)
We are discussing a mechanism by which a text message can be sent during a Presidentially recognized state of emergency. That seems a little different from from standard email. When the President starts sending out Viagra ads I'll give your point more credence. :-)
if the Government speaks and one has a WEA-enabled device, one must listen like a good little citizen!
I missed the part where the delete button was disabled, and there was a quiz to determine that you had in fact read the text message prior to deletion. :-)
Sure it doesn't, that's in the law:
the words âoepersonâ and âoewhoeverâ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
(1 U.S.C. Â1)
You left out the part that says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise".
In short, this is a mechanism by which organizations are subject to the same laws and regulations that individuals are. The qualification of "context" is quite important here. With respect to rights context would determine what would also apply to organizations and would would exclusively apply to individuals. Speech is merely an activity that by context applies to both individuals and organizations.
I, for one, do not care for this ...
Seriously? In a large scale disaster (hurricane, earthquake, etc) you would be irritated by getting a free text telling you where emergency relief (shelter, blankets, food, water) may be found? In tornado country you would be irritated by getting a free text warning you of weather conditions that may indicate tornado formation?
People keep saying " look at the Monsanto Protection legislation," but pretty much no one actually looks at it.
What they really mean to say is look at this particular proponent's / opponent's spin on the legislation. I have not read the Monsanto legislation, I'm quite open to it being a travesty, but I did read (well much of it, skimmed some) the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Nowhere did it say that corporations are people, that phrase was coined by the opponents of the decision as a wonderfully successful attempt at framing, manufacturing a narrative. What the decision actually said was that groups of people have the same speech rights as an individual person and it does not matter if that group is a corporation, a labor union, an advocacy group, an activist group, etc.
Well, I tend to think people go overboard with the whole private enterprise / government debate ... because corporations have no ethics or morals other than the profit motive - all other things and people are secondary
You just went overboard. Corporations have the ethics and morals of its leadership. Some are both ethical and moral, not purely guided by the profit motive. In my personal experience where I witnessed such leadership the company (a publicly traded company with billions in revenue) was still run by its founders, not by professional management installed by venture capital. I suspect this is a major contributing factor.
And if you notice, a lot of the whining coming from the corporate class is about too much regulation. Not a coincidence.
That is clearly not the case. Have you spent a significant amount of time around small business? Admittedly I don't consider small business owners to be "corporate class", I think my exclusion is fair.
The USSR never claimed to be Communist (hint: what does the acronym means? (not that they were Socialists, not after Stalin anyway)).
The Soviet Union was governed by a single party system. That single party was the Communist Party.
Tell you what; you get anyone to mod you up, and I'll bother replying with a detailed summary of exactly how wrong you are.
I don't ask people to mod me up. BTW, I have the only 5 in this thread, at the moment at least. Please feel free to attempt a rebuttal. :-)
Been to a protest? Lots of people's free speech rights are impinged upon. In at least one case, a few busloads worth.
5 buses let through. 13 diverted to an alternate location two miles away. Yep that is certainly on par with being sent to a Siberian gulag for political dissent.
the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now
That would mean that the soviet system wasn't monitoring every move a citizen made, clamping down on whistle blowers and repressing free speech.
The Soviets would have listened to the phone calls, reportedly the NSA is not doing so.
Repressing free speech? Who has been sent to an Alaskan gulag over the content of their phone call?
For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
Read up on the Stalin era. Even later Soviet leaders were disgusted.
While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country.
And in the odd perverse mathematics of war may have saved lives compared to blockade and starvation or invasion and mass casualties by conventional weapons. The simple fact was that Truman was expecting 500,000 American dead and 5 million Japanese dead if the war continued through conventional means. The atomic bombings were a tragedy, the problem is that the other options may have been far worse. A classic negative-negative decision, all your likely options are bad.
The casualties from mass fire bombings in Tokyo were comparable to an atomic bombing. Read Eugene Sledge's "With The Old Breed" for an account of the fighting on Okinawa. President Truman had such accounts in his mind when he made the decision. Also note that civilian casualties on Okinawa were comparable to an atomic bombing. I realize it is popular today to say that Japan was going to surrender anyway but the historical facts are that the surrender after the atomic bombings and after the emperor's decision nearly failed when a military coup was attempted. The plotter's had to "rescue" the emperor from the bad advice his ministers were providing and prevent his surrender message from going out. We have no idea what would have happened without the atomic bombings, imminent surrender is hardly a foregone conclusion. Again, Truman faced a negative-negative decision, he had no good option, rather one option that may produce fewer casualties (military and civilian) than the others.
We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.
Agreed, terrible.
We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism."
Seriously? This is some great and terrible crime?
We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.
McCarthy was a buffoon. The anti-communist witch hunts wrong. But you are making my point for me. These witch hunts were nothing like those under the Soviets. Read up on Soviet gulags.
We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them.
Decoded 1944 Soviet cables confirmed Julius worked for the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that they helped accelerate the Soviet atomic bomb program. Various Soviet officials eventually confirmed that Julius was a wartime spy.
They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.
Primary source or merely a secondary confirmatory source, large contribution or small contribution, its still wartime espionage. Was the penalty excessive, perhaps, but executing a wartime spy is hardly in the same category as executing those who disagree with a government policy, as we saw in large scale during the Stalin era. Again, you are merely confirming the US and Soviet governments were nothing alike. No one is claiming the US government was without flaws and mistakes, just nowhere near the Soviet level. Enlightened leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev were the exception not the rule.
Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.
There was a great Russian writer, who emigrated from the Soviet Union, who used to say: 'Communists I hate the most. But the ones which I hate even more are the anti-communists'.
Karl Marx would probably not have considered the Soviet state to be a Communist state. Dictators and zealots come in both far left and far right flavors, merely different sides of the same coin.
I certainly agree with your point. But if the former Soviets you know don't live there anymore, it is a self-selected sample of people who disliked it enough to leave.
Good point. However given the disparity between the number of people who desired to leave the Soviet system for the west and the number of people who desired to leave the west for the Soviet system, I'd say the above group represents a valid appraisal. Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.
I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe.
The people I know who lived under the Soviet regime vehemently disagree with such revisionism. For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
The microcomputer revolution that Woz was a significant contributor to was in part a movement against the "cloud" of that day, remote minicomputers and mainframes where your software and your data lived. One of the goals of the microcomputer revolution was to have your software and your data on your computer on your desk.
If we were to have a second revolution in the spirit of the preceding perhaps we would have our own "cloud" servers hosted on our own IP address at home, offering ubiquitous access to all of our computers and devices and syncing between them. Again, all your data being hosted on your server on your desk (or in the corner or the closet).
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 "Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Byars v. US, 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
You are confusing traveling on a public road with being the driver of a vehicle. The two are very different things. To avoid redundant posts see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3852847&cid=43985959.