when the C64 came out with 64K No-ONE doubted it had 65536 Bytes of RAM
No kid playing with his first or second computer, anyway. Old hands used to dealing with memory measured in kilowords (with the standard SI meaning of "kilo") would have had to ask. They might have had to ask how big a byte was, too. There's a reason standards call them octets, you know.
You just think this is some kind of carved-in-stone standard because it's what you were first exposed to.
luckily Hurricane Electric has such an agreement, so as long as I use their DNS servers
Very interesting... I have an IPv6 tunnel from HE and I'd like to get that working as well. Is it as simple as pointing your resolver at HE's DNS servers? If so, what are their addresses?
"Would you like ultra-wide spectrum super-HD eyes with 60x optical zoom, Internet-connected HUD and complimentary laser cannons, just like everyone else has?"
Not only does Congress have the constitutional right to do things which are necessary and proper
I notice you still fail to say which Congressional authority your "necessary and proper" argument is based on.
in addition it is a damn good thing they have their finger in the education pie
That may well be true. If so, we should get off our butts and amend the Constitution to add that to the list of things Congress is authorized and required to do. In the process of making the amendment we could have a nice national debate about the precise role of the federal government in this space.
Obviously that's not going to happen. We gave up on all but a weak pretense of paying any attention to our Constitution decades ago, and we're well on the path to discarding any semblance of the Rule of Law. We've become a nation that prefers expediency to principle. If I'm living in a fantasy world, it's because I choose to believe that if enough people care about and argue for a principled government, then we can perhaps turn the tide. And since we as a nation still like to pay lip service to the Constitution even as we ignore its content, a good way to point out the bad situation we're in is to argue for adherence to Constitutional government -- so that it becomes obvious to people just how far we've strayed from it!
Even you, despite your sneering and your sarcasm (which, by the way, speaks poorly of your ability to think clearly and rationally), implicitly admit that there is no legal foundation for what the federal government is doing beyond simple expediency. You think it's a good idea for the government to do it, therefore it should, regardless of whether or not there's any legal basis for the action. That's the same thought process that allows us to blithely discard legal limitations on wiretaps, due process, etc.
It may seem expedient in the short run, but in the long run it's a bad idea to abandon the rule of law.
The courts have gone badly astray for most of the 20th century, tending to follow public policy preference rather than the text of the constitution. It all really started with FDR's court-packing threat.
I'm glad you have finally come around to my position, which is that your former claims were untenably out of touch with the legal traditions of this country going back for many decades, or perhaps to the very beginning of the union. Cheers!
Well, back to the 30s, anyway. But I completely reject the notion that because the court screwed up 80 years ago we shouldn't be trying to repair the problem now.
Get the country to the point where bribery is no longer a practical necessity and I think you'll see government enforcement scale quite well to 1+ billion people.
Agreed. The notion that government enforcement doesn't scale is just silly. China may not have bothered to scale it, but it scales up just fine, as long as there's enough wealth to pay a significant portion of the population to be the enforcers.
Regardless, I'm not sure that many Americans do think that universal health care would be a bad thing, they just don't want to fund it through their taxes, so don't support it. They likely see it as something along the lines of "if people want health care, they should work to pay for it". It is a very capitalist model, but not necessarily immoral.
There are also a fair number of Americans, like me, who don't have any problem with the idea of state-provided healthcare, but don't want the federal government to provide it. From a legalistic perspective, the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide healthcare, which means that the courts really shouldn't allow them to do it, but the 50 states absolutely could. From a practical perspective, we both have deep mistrust of our federal government's ability to manage the system well, and think there's a lot of value in having 50 parallel experiments in how to best implement such a system -- including allowing states who want to take a more capitalist approach to do so.
One common criticism of the state-run approach is that state governments do have a little more trouble with corruption than the federal government (the feds are more known for inefficiency and abuse, but tend not to have much corruption), and that's where the federal courts do have a legitimate authority, to ensure that the states are following their own laws, and that those laws are fair and evenhanded.
Oh, BTW, I should mention that there absolutely IS one legitimate role in education for the federal government, that of protecting citizens from civil rights encroachments that may arise from state education programs. That role is a result of the 14th amendment.
The necessary and proper clause is the constitutional authority.
The necessary and proper clause requires some foregoing constitutional authority which the actions in question are "necessary and proper" to carry out.
Which Congressional mandate has as a necessary and proper consequence the regulation of education?
If it were unconstitutional, which it isn't, then opponents of federal education administration would have defeated it in courts, which they haven't.
The courts have gone badly astray for most of the 20th century, tending to follow public policy preference rather than the text of the constitution. It all really started with FDR's court-packing threat.
I don't respond to sarcasm. If you'd like to have a conversation, I'm willing. We can talk about history, why different things were done at different times, how the census evolved the way it is, etc.
I will say that there is no problem with the government asking for whatever data it likes. The issue arises when they try to compel private information, whether through actual force (which I don't believe has ever really happened -- and I'm including levying of fines as "force") or through intimidation, which is what they try to do now.
the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply
I've sent an e-mail to the EFF encouraging them to take up his case if it goes that far, and saying that I'll contribute another $100 if they do.
This sort of thing is a serious danger to on-line freedom, and everyone who cares about it should chip in to make sure that the fight goes the way we want it to.
The constitutional purpose of the census is to count people, not to figure out who rents vs. who owns their homes, or what their age/race distribution is.
You sounds very knowledgeable. Where did you study constitutional law?
The Internet. It's a fantastic resource if you are willing to invest the time, and use it to focus on original sources and key court rulings, rather than the rantings of pundits.
In this particular case, though, there's really not much to study. The text of the constitution is abundantly clear on the purpose of the decennial enumeration.
What constitutional authority does the federal government have to regulate education?
That is not a rhetorical question. It's a very serious question, and the fact that the government does a lot of other things that it has no constitutional basis for (and a fairly explicit constitutional prohibition against) isn't a valid answer.
If you think it's useful for the federal government to have a role in education, then lets amend the constitution to give it that authority. Otherwise, we should not only avoid expanding its authority in that sphere, we should be actively eliminating its current unconstitutional activities.
It's a quaint, outmoded concept known as the "Rule of Law". And it's a very, very good idea.
If you are so paranoid as to be afraid of the government breaking the law
Not breaking the law, changing the law.
what makes them think they won't arrest you for violating the Census law
Because in the current political climate that won't happen. Or I don't think it will. If it does, then it's really important that some of us get arrested so that we can fix it.
The problem with providing information is that it doesn't go away when the political environment changes. Remember what happened after 9/11, and imagine where we might be after a few such large shocks. People get scared, and angry, and start saying things like "the gloves come off". When there is enough popular support for doing X, Congress and the executive branch do X, whether it's constitutional or not, and whether or not they promised earlier not to.
If you won't trust them to do this information than leave the country NOW
I think it's important to fight for the freedoms you want to have. You can't obtain freedom by running away, because all governments tend to encroach on civil liberties, including the places you might try to run to. The point we're talking about is a very minor issue, really, but it's symbolic of a whole class of more important issues -- and I take a stand on those wherever and however I can as well.
And that federal funding is requested by the school districts, who have a far better idea of where the population is at and where schools are needed than the federal government does.
Okay. So if you're concerned about that, only buy and install a monitor which has no disconnect or load limiting capabilities.
I guess the point really is that you don't get a choice. Your electric company decides what type of meter gets installed on the side of your house and what capabilities it has.
I suppose in some cases. Personally, I've been looking into buying my own and installing it myself. There are several options with nice displays and the ability to push the data to Google's system (if you want) for $100-200. I expect that I could make such a system pay for itself in a year or so, just by using the data to identify how I can better manage my power consumption.
I understand privacy concerns, but I also understand the valuable ways this information is used. Things like trying to figure out the best place to locate infrastructure like schools and VA hospitals.
What interest does the federal government have in the location of schools? That's a state function. And the VA already tracks all of the veterans.
But filling them out provides valuable data today for all kinds of things, from predicting how many students will enroll in your public schools to how many representatives you'll have in local, state, and federal elections.
First, why is any of the demographic data beyond number of school-age children and number of voting-age adults necessary for either of those things.
Second, why does the federal government need any of that? Congressional representation doesn't depend on the number of voters in the state, just on the number of people in the state. And the federal government has no role in managing public school enrollment, that's a state/local function.
So do you have any good examples about why we should provide this information?
Okay. So if you're concerned about that, only buy and install a monitor which has no disconnect or load limiting capabilities. The models I've looked at are strictly monitor-only.
Slashdot Mirror
when the C64 came out with 64K No-ONE doubted it had 65536 Bytes of RAM
No kid playing with his first or second computer, anyway. Old hands used to dealing with memory measured in kilowords (with the standard SI meaning of "kilo") would have had to ask. They might have had to ask how big a byte was, too. There's a reason standards call them octets, you know.
You just think this is some kind of carved-in-stone standard because it's what you were first exposed to.
luckily Hurricane Electric has such an agreement, so as long as I use their DNS servers
Very interesting... I have an IPv6 tunnel from HE and I'd like to get that working as well. Is it as simple as pointing your resolver at HE's DNS servers? If so, what are their addresses?
Ah, but where does it end?
"Would you like ultra-wide spectrum super-HD eyes with 60x optical zoom, Internet-connected HUD and complimentary laser cannons, just like everyone else has?"
Hell, yeah!!
That's even dumber than the first question.
Not only does Congress have the constitutional right to do things which are necessary and proper
I notice you still fail to say which Congressional authority your "necessary and proper" argument is based on.
in addition it is a damn good thing they have their finger in the education pie
That may well be true. If so, we should get off our butts and amend the Constitution to add that to the list of things Congress is authorized and required to do. In the process of making the amendment we could have a nice national debate about the precise role of the federal government in this space.
Obviously that's not going to happen. We gave up on all but a weak pretense of paying any attention to our Constitution decades ago, and we're well on the path to discarding any semblance of the Rule of Law. We've become a nation that prefers expediency to principle. If I'm living in a fantasy world, it's because I choose to believe that if enough people care about and argue for a principled government, then we can perhaps turn the tide. And since we as a nation still like to pay lip service to the Constitution even as we ignore its content, a good way to point out the bad situation we're in is to argue for adherence to Constitutional government -- so that it becomes obvious to people just how far we've strayed from it!
Even you, despite your sneering and your sarcasm (which, by the way, speaks poorly of your ability to think clearly and rationally), implicitly admit that there is no legal foundation for what the federal government is doing beyond simple expediency. You think it's a good idea for the government to do it, therefore it should, regardless of whether or not there's any legal basis for the action. That's the same thought process that allows us to blithely discard legal limitations on wiretaps, due process, etc.
It may seem expedient in the short run, but in the long run it's a bad idea to abandon the rule of law.
Again, we agree.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The courts have gone badly astray for most of the 20th century, tending to follow public policy preference rather than the text of the constitution. It all really started with FDR's court-packing threat.
I'm glad you have finally come around to my position, which is that your former claims were untenably out of touch with the legal traditions of this country going back for many decades, or perhaps to the very beginning of the union. Cheers!
Well, back to the 30s, anyway. But I completely reject the notion that because the court screwed up 80 years ago we shouldn't be trying to repair the problem now.
Get the country to the point where bribery is no longer a practical necessity and I think you'll see government enforcement scale quite well to 1+ billion people.
Agreed. The notion that government enforcement doesn't scale is just silly. China may not have bothered to scale it, but it scales up just fine, as long as there's enough wealth to pay a significant portion of the population to be the enforcers.
Regardless, I'm not sure that many Americans do think that universal health care would be a bad thing, they just don't want to fund it through their taxes, so don't support it. They likely see it as something along the lines of "if people want health care, they should work to pay for it". It is a very capitalist model, but not necessarily immoral.
There are also a fair number of Americans, like me, who don't have any problem with the idea of state-provided healthcare, but don't want the federal government to provide it. From a legalistic perspective, the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide healthcare, which means that the courts really shouldn't allow them to do it, but the 50 states absolutely could. From a practical perspective, we both have deep mistrust of our federal government's ability to manage the system well, and think there's a lot of value in having 50 parallel experiments in how to best implement such a system -- including allowing states who want to take a more capitalist approach to do so.
One common criticism of the state-run approach is that state governments do have a little more trouble with corruption than the federal government (the feds are more known for inefficiency and abuse, but tend not to have much corruption), and that's where the federal courts do have a legitimate authority, to ensure that the states are following their own laws, and that those laws are fair and evenhanded.
Oh, BTW, I should mention that there absolutely IS one legitimate role in education for the federal government, that of protecting citizens from civil rights encroachments that may arise from state education programs. That role is a result of the 14th amendment.
The necessary and proper clause is the constitutional authority.
The necessary and proper clause requires some foregoing constitutional authority which the actions in question are "necessary and proper" to carry out.
Which Congressional mandate has as a necessary and proper consequence the regulation of education?
If it were unconstitutional, which it isn't, then opponents of federal education administration would have defeated it in courts, which they haven't.
The courts have gone badly astray for most of the 20th century, tending to follow public policy preference rather than the text of the constitution. It all really started with FDR's court-packing threat.
I don't respond to sarcasm. If you'd like to have a conversation, I'm willing. We can talk about history, why different things were done at different times, how the census evolved the way it is, etc.
I will say that there is no problem with the government asking for whatever data it likes. The issue arises when they try to compel private information, whether through actual force (which I don't believe has ever really happened -- and I'm including levying of fines as "force") or through intimidation, which is what they try to do now.
the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply
I've sent an e-mail to the EFF encouraging them to take up his case if it goes that far, and saying that I'll contribute another $100 if they do.
This sort of thing is a serious danger to on-line freedom, and everyone who cares about it should chip in to make sure that the fight goes the way we want it to.
No one owns data.
I wonder how many decades it's going to take before that concept really sinks in to our collective psyche.
Very well put.
The constitutional purpose of the census is to count people, not to figure out who rents vs. who owns their homes, or what their age/race distribution is.
You sounds very knowledgeable. Where did you study constitutional law?
The Internet. It's a fantastic resource if you are willing to invest the time, and use it to focus on original sources and key court rulings, rather than the rantings of pundits.
In this particular case, though, there's really not much to study. The text of the constitution is abundantly clear on the purpose of the decennial enumeration.
What constitutional authority does the federal government have to regulate education?
That is not a rhetorical question. It's a very serious question, and the fact that the government does a lot of other things that it has no constitutional basis for (and a fairly explicit constitutional prohibition against) isn't a valid answer.
If you think it's useful for the federal government to have a role in education, then lets amend the constitution to give it that authority. Otherwise, we should not only avoid expanding its authority in that sphere, we should be actively eliminating its current unconstitutional activities.
It's a quaint, outmoded concept known as the "Rule of Law". And it's a very, very good idea.
If you are so paranoid as to be afraid of the government breaking the law
Not breaking the law, changing the law.
what makes them think they won't arrest you for violating the Census law
Because in the current political climate that won't happen. Or I don't think it will. If it does, then it's really important that some of us get arrested so that we can fix it.
The problem with providing information is that it doesn't go away when the political environment changes. Remember what happened after 9/11, and imagine where we might be after a few such large shocks. People get scared, and angry, and start saying things like "the gloves come off". When there is enough popular support for doing X, Congress and the executive branch do X, whether it's constitutional or not, and whether or not they promised earlier not to.
If you won't trust them to do this information than leave the country NOW
I think it's important to fight for the freedoms you want to have. You can't obtain freedom by running away, because all governments tend to encroach on civil liberties, including the places you might try to run to. The point we're talking about is a very minor issue, really, but it's symbolic of a whole class of more important issues -- and I take a stand on those wherever and however I can as well.
Only in retrospect is wisdom truly appreciated.
Too true... and all too often "in retrospect" means "after it's too late".
There's no leaking going on.
That just means it hasn't happened yet. They can't leak what they don't have.
And that federal funding is requested by the school districts, who have a far better idea of where the population is at and where schools are needed than the federal government does.
Okay. So if you're concerned about that, only buy and install a monitor which has no disconnect or load limiting capabilities.
I guess the point really is that you don't get a choice. Your electric company decides what type of meter gets installed on the side of your house and what capabilities it has.
I suppose in some cases. Personally, I've been looking into buying my own and installing it myself. There are several options with nice displays and the ability to push the data to Google's system (if you want) for $100-200. I expect that I could make such a system pay for itself in a year or so, just by using the data to identify how I can better manage my power consumption.
But the thing about America is that we FIX problems when we realize that we made a mistake.
Unless we decide to break them again.
The thing about legislative security controls is that all that's required to defeat them is another bill.
I understand privacy concerns, but I also understand the valuable ways this information is used. Things like trying to figure out the best place to locate infrastructure like schools and VA hospitals.
What interest does the federal government have in the location of schools? That's a state function. And the VA already tracks all of the veterans.
But filling them out provides valuable data today for all kinds of things, from predicting how many students will enroll in your public schools to how many representatives you'll have in local, state, and federal elections.
First, why is any of the demographic data beyond number of school-age children and number of voting-age adults necessary for either of those things.
Second, why does the federal government need any of that? Congressional representation doesn't depend on the number of voters in the state, just on the number of people in the state. And the federal government has no role in managing public school enrollment, that's a state/local function.
So do you have any good examples about why we should provide this information?
Okay. So if you're concerned about that, only buy and install a monitor which has no disconnect or load limiting capabilities. The models I've looked at are strictly monitor-only.