Instead of each device having a battery and a wireless radio, each device will have a data I/O and a power I/O device. You'll be able to have one efficient battery power your watch, PDA, cell phone, and display-eye-wear.
And how the HELL do you think it started? We HAVE to defend our freedoms, and we HAVE to defend our liberties, or assholes like you that say "It doesn't affect me" will let the government do what it will - with the slow errosion of our basic rights.
Ok, fine.
I demand my freedom to know who the asshats are around me. My freedom to be safe more than trumps your freedom to be anonymous.
Don't want the government to know what you're doing? Don't do ANYTHING. Stay at home and leave the rest of us in peace.
Why sir, do you wear a seatbelt? Is not your life YOUR responsibility? Oh, but wait, some asshole like you said, "I don't mind", and BOOM, its now a law. Your ability to think for yourself is taken away. SLOWLY taken away, and it will continue to be taken away each time some asshole like you says, "it doesn't affect me." and doesn't speak to stop the government.
Seat belts. Sheesh.
The state--by which I mean "all the rest of us"--have an interest in keeping you alive and well. If you don't wear a seat belt, your immediate family mourns, the healthcare system gets yet another avoidable strain, and the rest of us wind up paying more in taxes and insurance fees.
A lot of assholes like me said "yeah, seatbelts make sense. Go ahead and require them, mr. local state."
You don't like it? Don't drive. (or are you going to bitch about speed limits when you're alone on the road?)
Getting around in a car _does_ often require you to carry papers. Cops can stop you any time they feel like it and demand them.
Only if you're driving. If you aren't driving and don't have your wallet, at the worst they'll ask you for your name and home address so they can look you up in "the system."
None of those entities constitute the local milita
I do believe that they do. In fact, in New York I know that the State Police are the local militia.
Even in the earliest colonial times, the proper stance for a milita is to contact the local government or nearby military body and offer service. Going off like a mob with a previously unorganized body--or, worse, a body that refuses to work with government or the professional military--is simply not effective in any situation wherein a militia might actually be useful.
(In the event that you find the military or police to be actually violent corrupt, you're probably outnumbered and you should seek refuge elsewhere--which is, at this point, simple pragmatic tactics.)
The industrial revolution did more to increase prosperity and peace in the U.S., while Lincoln's policies made sure that a disproportionate piece of that prosperity went to his big business buddies and public works projects.
You really, really don't pay attention to history.
The Industrial Revoltion was, in and of itself, the single greatest reason for the socalization of our country. The shift from distributed agriculture and direct craftsmanship to bulk manufacture resulted in a concentration of wealth and power precedented only by the slaveowning aristocracy and the pre-American nobility--which, as I'm sure you're aware, was explicity abolished by the original Constitution.
Socialst programs, from welfare to worker's rights to minimum wage to the legalization of unions to social security, are the reason why the bulk of Americans did not embrace Communism's violent revolution. Patriotism and religion and tradition are all well and good, but people will always work in their own immediate best interest--and without socalist programs, capitalism's long term benefits will not outweigh its short-term pains.
(Oh, and the expansionism and regionalism that the Industrial Revolution demanded and exacerbated were the primary reason for every war fought on this continent since the War of 1812. Prosperity yes, Peace no.)
Are you a felon? If not, you're either a liar or sorely misinformed.
Some forms of travel--namely trains and airplanes--require identification and payment. Other forms, namely automobiles, require that you register the vechicle and pay for insurance.
But nothing aside from mere logistics (where do I eat, where do I sleep, how do I pay for the two) stops you or I from standing up and walking from one end of this country to the next. Heck, if you've got a good enough wit, you can ride along, perfectly legal, with any random person you come across. (Some places have rules against picking up hitchhikers, but you're not a hitchhiker if you ask for a ride from someone at a truck stop, diner or gas station.)
No. I mean, horribly no. The holocost-was-just-forced-labor wrong.
Soviet Russia and internal Nazi Germany were abhorent and required papers not for identification, but for permission to travel. To migrate around the country you needed to have a passport. In some cases they didn't even care WHO you were, so long as your paper said "bearer may go from Siberia to Moscow."
You inslut the memory of every person who ever died for daring to try and find a better life away from tyranny by comparing the mere need to identify yourself to a police officer with the controls that the tyrannical regimes of the 20th century used to keep their population from seeking freedom.
And alien nazis (just say it out loud, with a smile in your voice--and remember that, by the 'trek cronology, we're all slaves to Khan right about now)
Where was I? Oh, yes.
The alien nazi (singluar, remember) is a great example of the subtle fact that Enterprise brings into the central focus a topic that goes hand-in-hand with FTL travel and has been only tangentially mentioned in previous Star Treks: Time Travel.
Enterprise is ALL about time travel--it's not set "before Kirk", it's set long after Janeway, after the Federation has won and perfected time travel. It's just told from the story of a ship that blew up in the history that Kirk knew, and only launched because of an incident that never happened to Kirk's historical Johnathan Archer.
The apparatus of state is separated from the church, because it is harmful. It should likewise be seperated from the entertainment industry, because of the propaganda possibilities, shaping the next generation of Americans.
Wrong. I mean, wrong from the get-go.
Seperation of church and state is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.
The military is entirely withing their fair and right avenue of action to try and influence the attitudes of the next generation of Americans. If they weren't, they wouldn't have a recruiting program.
It's as clear cut as anything else about humankind.
Conservative/Liberal, Masculine/Feminine, Active/Passive--there is a blured line between each, and you'll find part of each in everyone.
Let's go back to Piccasso and Einstein. Einstein did NOT show a great deal of artistry in his work, and Piccaso likewise showed quite a lack of craftsmanship.
! So now states can no longer prohibit speech? Great, who do I go to when I receive a death threat now?
You're betraying an amazing lack of understanding.
The right to free speach is not an absolute right; when the rights of other people take precedence over your right to speach, speach is curtailed.
It's not a question of "making a law." It's a question of recognizing an unspoken right, as enumerated in the 10th Amendment, and deciding that the temporary infringemnet of one right of one citizen is less important than the irrevocable right of any other citizen.
See, in the US Constitution, the Federal judicial branch only has jurisdiction UNDER the law, not over it, with good reason, otherwise we end up with the situation today...
Again, you're living in the wrong country. Almost the very first act of the federal judiciary was to exercise its power to constructively interpret the law. You don't have to like it, but you'll have a better chance of repealing women's suffurage and the 13th amendment than you do of making the Supreme Court an unequal partner again.
Wouldn't you think if the Constitution were to be so easily changed that it wouldn't take three fourths of the states to do it?
Kindly explain how the Constitution has been changed by an act of the Supreme Court. Take as long as you like; I'll read it and offer my comments.
How could Einstein be what he was, without describing things with words? To say such things, shows how little you know of art, poetry, music, and especially "engineering".
(I'll ignore the ad hominem attack. Please refrain from making assumptions about my character in the future.)
The difference between art and, let's call it craft, is a clear line that, despite the repeated blurring of many people on each side, is still clear and distinct unless you're looking to blurr it.
An artist creates something and is focused on creating something for the thing's own sake, or as a means of expression.
A craftsman (including engineers and scientists) creates something for a purpose--to do something, or prove something, or learn something.
Now, of course, there's no reason that Piccaso can't make himself a pretty but very functional mug, and there's no reason Einstein can't doodle. But to lump these very different types of creativity together into one thing is to insult and limit every great achievement in either field.
Yes, there are artistic craftsmen and crafty artists, but that doesn't mean that art and craft are the same thing. If you're an engineer, or a computer programmer, you only lessen yourself by claiming to be what you are not instead of taking pride in that which you are.
Hatch's proposed two paragraphs--essentially, making it illegal to induce someone to commit copyright infringement--is well Congress's authority to "secur[e]... to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Now, the bill might fail if it's interpreted or phrased so as to curtail some other right--but, like the DMCA, it isn't wholly unconstitutional law.
I'm sorry you don't like it, personally I think it's a good thing, I fail to see why anyone should be able to leverage the resources of government at any level to push religion.
Not to disagree with everything else you said, but there is one perfectly reasonable reason to use government resources to push religion.
* To ensure equal respect of all religions of the United States in secular affairs.
That is the most socialist thing I have heard anyone say about education, and supports most of my vehement opposition to public education. Quite frankly, I don't want your kid's fscking money when I retire - that's why I have a retirement account and savings, so I can retire an not be leech on society. And I'll be damned if my kid's money is gonna go to support your socialist ass when you feel you'v earned a rest. You want a rest, grasshopper, stop playing away the summer and start saving for it.
So, you're planning on leaving the country, then?
You're about a century late with the ideas you're espousing, bud. We had welfare, social security, minimum wage, progressive taxation, medicaid, medicare, and government pork throughout the twentith centry, and they're not going away anytime soon.
You think Socialist is a dirty word? That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. The fact is that the USA is a very "socialist" country, and nothing short of a domestic revolt is going to change that.
Are you saying that, should an armed invasion of the U.S. happen, that you wouldn't hobble your broken-down socialist ass onto your lawn to defend your home and family? I'd defend my home and family with a ball-point pen and some shipping twine in a wheelchair if I had to.
Actually, I'd contact the local militia--the city police, county sherrif, or local military command--and offer my assitance. You'd probably go out randomly with your ball-point pen and wait for them to come to you, and if the invasion were repelled it'd only be done by those of us willing to put our country before ourselves.
Everything since then is resting on the cracked foundation the tyrant Abraham Lincoln left us with.
Don't forget that this "cracked foundation" has been more productive and given the nation a higher standard of living (and opulant ceiling) than the pre-Lincon system ever could.
Oh, and Paper money (which isn't so much "illegal" as "unauthorized"--the Constitution doesn't say they CAN'T do it) is no more false than precious metals. It has value because it's seen to have value, and so can be traded for things which have intrinsic value.
(Slight segway: yes, Gold and Diamonds have intrinsic value--they are the best choice material for a few specific and MODERN applications--but their very high value is owed more to the perception of them as "value" than their intrinsic worth.)
Socialism, as it was practiced by those who concieved of the idea in America in the late 19th century, is not "wait for the government to tell us what to do." Rather, it's "think about what we do as a group, not as individuals, or the tyrant will win."
It's a very democratic economic fiction, and is beaten out by the rather tyrannical economic fiction that is capitalism because of simple efficiency.
To think that a Carmack-level uberprogrammer is somehow less creative than these worthless tripe peddlers is obscene, to state it publically with the conviction you seem to have is positively blasphemous.
Not less creative--less artistic
Programming is engineering or design, not art. Einstein was no less creative than Piccasso, but he was a heck of a lot less artistic.
To this day, it's much easier to mark the margins of a highlighted paragraph with asterisks and the like in WordPerfect (just a format attributed) than Word (text box).
why do you want to mark a paragraph's margins with asterisks instead of some other line syle?
Word is perfectly capable of marking the margins of a paragraph, using any line style it has.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Instead of each device having a battery and a wireless radio, each device will have a data I/O and a power I/O device. You'll be able to have one efficient battery power your watch, PDA, cell phone, and display-eye-wear.
The smartest people are in the private sector
Nope. The smartest people aren't in any "sector"--they've made their ten million, got out, and are working on whatever the hell they want.
Wage-slaves, be they government or private or non-profit, are simply not motivated enough to be the smartest people in the world.
But the easiest way to get rid of cockroaches isn't to squash them all. It's to eliminate their food source.
These weapons are being used to devestate countries that harbor terrorists. Not doing that bad a job, actually.
And how the HELL do you think it started? We HAVE to defend our freedoms, and we HAVE to defend our liberties, or assholes like you that say "It doesn't affect me" will let the government do what it will - with the slow errosion of our basic rights.
Ok, fine.
I demand my freedom to know who the asshats are around me. My freedom to be safe more than trumps your freedom to be anonymous.
Don't want the government to know what you're doing? Don't do ANYTHING. Stay at home and leave the rest of us in peace.
Why sir, do you wear a seatbelt? Is not your life YOUR responsibility? Oh, but wait, some asshole like you said, "I don't mind", and BOOM, its now a law. Your ability to think for yourself is taken away. SLOWLY taken away, and it will continue to be taken away each time some asshole like you says, "it doesn't affect me." and doesn't speak to stop the government.
Seat belts. Sheesh.
The state--by which I mean "all the rest of us"--have an interest in keeping you alive and well. If you don't wear a seat belt, your immediate family mourns, the healthcare system gets yet another avoidable strain, and the rest of us wind up paying more in taxes and insurance fees.
A lot of assholes like me said "yeah, seatbelts make sense. Go ahead and require them, mr. local state."
You don't like it? Don't drive. (or are you going to bitch about speed limits when you're alone on the road?)
Getting around in a car _does_ often require you to carry papers. Cops can stop you any time they feel like it and demand them.
Only if you're driving. If you aren't driving and don't have your wallet, at the worst they'll ask you for your name and home address so they can look you up in "the system."
None of those entities constitute the local milita
I do believe that they do. In fact, in New York I know that the State Police are the local militia.
Even in the earliest colonial times, the proper stance for a milita is to contact the local government or nearby military body and offer service. Going off like a mob with a previously unorganized body--or, worse, a body that refuses to work with government or the professional military--is simply not effective in any situation wherein a militia might actually be useful.
(In the event that you find the military or police to be actually violent corrupt, you're probably outnumbered and you should seek refuge elsewhere--which is, at this point, simple pragmatic tactics.)
The industrial revolution did more to increase prosperity and peace in the U.S., while Lincoln's policies made sure that a disproportionate piece of that prosperity went to his big business buddies and public works projects.
You really, really don't pay attention to history.
The Industrial Revoltion was, in and of itself, the single greatest reason for the socalization of our country. The shift from distributed agriculture and direct craftsmanship to bulk manufacture resulted in a concentration of wealth and power precedented only by the slaveowning aristocracy and the pre-American nobility--which, as I'm sure you're aware, was explicity abolished by the original Constitution.
Socialst programs, from welfare to worker's rights to minimum wage to the legalization of unions to social security, are the reason why the bulk of Americans did not embrace Communism's violent revolution. Patriotism and religion and tradition are all well and good, but people will always work in their own immediate best interest--and without socalist programs, capitalism's long term benefits will not outweigh its short-term pains.
(Oh, and the expansionism and regionalism that the Industrial Revolution demanded and exacerbated were the primary reason for every war fought on this continent since the War of 1812. Prosperity yes, Peace no.)
I live in the USA. I need papers to travel.
Are you a felon? If not, you're either a liar or sorely misinformed.
Some forms of travel--namely trains and airplanes--require identification and payment. Other forms, namely automobiles, require that you register the vechicle and pay for insurance.
But nothing aside from mere logistics (where do I eat, where do I sleep, how do I pay for the two) stops you or I from standing up and walking from one end of this country to the next. Heck, if you've got a good enough wit, you can ride along, perfectly legal, with any random person you come across. (Some places have rules against picking up hitchhikers, but you're not a hitchhiker if you ask for a ride from someone at a truck stop, diner or gas station.)
No. I mean, horribly no. The holocost-was-just-forced-labor wrong.
Soviet Russia and internal Nazi Germany were abhorent and required papers not for identification, but for permission to travel. To migrate around the country you needed to have a passport. In some cases they didn't even care WHO you were, so long as your paper said "bearer may go from Siberia to Moscow."
You inslut the memory of every person who ever died for daring to try and find a better life away from tyranny by comparing the mere need to identify yourself to a police officer with the controls that the tyrannical regimes of the 20th century used to keep their population from seeking freedom.
Hey, they're "fresh" and "creative."
And alien nazis (just say it out loud, with a smile in your voice--and remember that, by the 'trek cronology, we're all slaves to Khan right about now)
Where was I? Oh, yes.
The alien nazi (singluar, remember) is a great example of the subtle fact that Enterprise brings into the central focus a topic that goes hand-in-hand with FTL travel and has been only tangentially mentioned in previous Star Treks: Time Travel.
Enterprise is ALL about time travel--it's not set "before Kirk", it's set long after Janeway, after the Federation has won and perfected time travel. It's just told from the story of a ship that blew up in the history that Kirk knew, and only launched because of an incident that never happened to Kirk's historical Johnathan Archer.
You obviously don't watch Enterprise.
BitTorrent is a replacement for FTP, not Napster.
The apparatus of state is separated from the church, because it is harmful. It should likewise be seperated from the entertainment industry, because of the propaganda possibilities, shaping the next generation of Americans.
Wrong. I mean, wrong from the get-go.
Seperation of church and state is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.
The military is entirely withing their fair and right avenue of action to try and influence the attitudes of the next generation of Americans. If they weren't, they wouldn't have a recruiting program.
I don't see it as being that clear cut, sorry
It's as clear cut as anything else about humankind.
Conservative/Liberal, Masculine/Feminine, Active/Passive--there is a blured line between each, and you'll find part of each in everyone.
Let's go back to Piccasso and Einstein. Einstein did NOT show a great deal of artistry in his work, and Piccaso likewise showed quite a lack of craftsmanship.
! So now states can no longer prohibit speech? Great, who do I go to when I receive a death threat now?
You're betraying an amazing lack of understanding.
The right to free speach is not an absolute right; when the rights of other people take precedence over your right to speach, speach is curtailed.
It's not a question of "making a law." It's a question of recognizing an unspoken right, as enumerated in the 10th Amendment, and deciding that the temporary infringemnet of one right of one citizen is less important than the irrevocable right of any other citizen.
See, in the US Constitution, the Federal judicial branch only has jurisdiction UNDER the law, not over it, with good reason, otherwise we end up with the situation today...
Again, you're living in the wrong country. Almost the very first act of the federal judiciary was to exercise its power to constructively interpret the law. You don't have to like it, but you'll have a better chance of repealing women's suffurage and the 13th amendment than you do of making the Supreme Court an unequal partner again.
Wouldn't you think if the Constitution were to be so easily changed that it wouldn't take three fourths of the states to do it?
Kindly explain how the Constitution has been changed by an act of the Supreme Court. Take as long as you like; I'll read it and offer my comments.
How could Einstein be what he was, without describing things with words? To say such things, shows how little you know of art, poetry, music, and especially "engineering".
(I'll ignore the ad hominem attack. Please refrain from making assumptions about my character in the future.)
The difference between art and, let's call it craft, is a clear line that, despite the repeated blurring of many people on each side, is still clear and distinct unless you're looking to blurr it.
An artist creates something and is focused on creating something for the thing's own sake, or as a means of expression.
A craftsman (including engineers and scientists) creates something for a purpose--to do something, or prove something, or learn something.
Now, of course, there's no reason that Piccaso can't make himself a pretty but very functional mug, and there's no reason Einstein can't doodle. But to lump these very different types of creativity together into one thing is to insult and limit every great achievement in either field.
Yes, there are artistic craftsmen and crafty artists, but that doesn't mean that art and craft are the same thing. If you're an engineer, or a computer programmer, you only lessen yourself by claiming to be what you are not instead of taking pride in that which you are.
Hatch's proposed two paragraphs--essentially, making it illegal to induce someone to commit copyright infringement--is well Congress's authority to "secur[e] ... to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Now, the bill might fail if it's interpreted or phrased so as to curtail some other right--but, like the DMCA, it isn't wholly unconstitutional law.
I'm sorry you don't like it, personally I think it's a good thing, I fail to see why anyone should be able to leverage the resources of government at any level to push religion.
Not to disagree with everything else you said, but there is one perfectly reasonable reason to use government resources to push religion.
* To ensure equal respect of all religions of the United States in secular affairs.
That is the most socialist thing I have heard anyone say about education, and supports most of my vehement opposition to public education. Quite frankly, I don't want your kid's fscking money when I retire - that's why I have a retirement account and savings, so I can retire an not be leech on society. And I'll be damned if my kid's money is gonna go to support your socialist ass when you feel you'v earned a rest. You want a rest, grasshopper, stop playing away the summer and start saving for it.
So, you're planning on leaving the country, then?
You're about a century late with the ideas you're espousing, bud. We had welfare, social security, minimum wage, progressive taxation, medicaid, medicare, and government pork throughout the twentith centry, and they're not going away anytime soon.
You think Socialist is a dirty word? That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. The fact is that the USA is a very "socialist" country, and nothing short of a domestic revolt is going to change that.
Are you saying that, should an armed invasion of the U.S. happen, that you wouldn't hobble your broken-down socialist ass onto your lawn to defend your home and family? I'd defend my home and family with a ball-point pen and some shipping twine in a wheelchair if I had to.
Actually, I'd contact the local militia--the city police, county sherrif, or local military command--and offer my assitance. You'd probably go out randomly with your ball-point pen and wait for them to come to you, and if the invasion were repelled it'd only be done by those of us willing to put our country before ourselves.
Everything since then is resting on the cracked foundation the tyrant Abraham Lincoln left us with.
Don't forget that this "cracked foundation" has been more productive and given the nation a higher standard of living (and opulant ceiling) than the pre-Lincon system ever could.
Oh, and Paper money (which isn't so much "illegal" as "unauthorized"--the Constitution doesn't say they CAN'T do it) is no more false than precious metals. It has value because it's seen to have value, and so can be traded for things which have intrinsic value.
(Slight segway: yes, Gold and Diamonds have intrinsic value--they are the best choice material for a few specific and MODERN applications--but their very high value is owed more to the perception of them as "value" than their intrinsic worth.)
Socialism, as it was practiced by those who concieved of the idea in America in the late 19th century, is not "wait for the government to tell us what to do." Rather, it's "think about what we do as a group, not as individuals, or the tyrant will win."
It's a very democratic economic fiction, and is beaten out by the rather tyrannical economic fiction that is capitalism because of simple efficiency.
You're glossing over a lot of details (like, Roy used state funds, and did it against his fellow judges's wishes), and ignoring one basic fact:
The law that pushed Roy's statue out of the courthouse was, however convoluted, based on the US Constitution.
If you're wondering "how", go looking for the Supreme Court desicion that extended rules about "the federal government" to the states.
To think that a Carmack-level uberprogrammer is somehow less creative than these worthless tripe peddlers is obscene, to state it publically with the conviction you seem to have is positively blasphemous.
Not less creative--less artistic
Programming is engineering or design, not art. Einstein was no less creative than Piccasso, but he was a heck of a lot less artistic.
So Article I, Section 8, clause 8 gets overruled.
If that were true, we wouldn't have any copyright at all.
These laws seek to corrupt that, and hence are unconstitutional.
A law's meaning has little, if anything, to do on its constitutionality. If it tries but comes just shy of perverting the constitution, it's OK.
Wrong, again.
The Constitution says that Congress gets to regulate patents and copyright, and that they should each be of a limited time.
Congress has as much lattitude with our IP system as they do with the structure of the courts or the congressional dress code.
To this day, it's much easier to mark the margins of a highlighted paragraph with asterisks and the like in WordPerfect (just a format attributed) than Word (text box).
why do you want to mark a paragraph's margins with asterisks instead of some other line syle?
Word is perfectly capable of marking the margins of a paragraph, using any line style it has.