My point was that other countries have different levels of gun control. All this without the need to be in the constitution. The right to have a car isn't in the constitution either.
You know that saying that there shouldn't be any gun control because it is a constitutional right is by itself a fallacy, right?
And I wasn't saying that the US shouldn't have gun control because other countries don't. I was just showing that it was possible not to have this "right" in the constitution.
First, it's not because it's a right that it should be in the constitution. Second, it's not because some people wrote a text in the 18th century that its content is perfect and should not be modified. And last, yes, I call for a constitutional convention to have it amended.
When someone says "there should be more gun control" and then someone replies "but it's a constitutional right", he misses the point completely and could as well say "it is so because it is the way it is", which would be a better argument.
I agree that I would prefer to pay all my income taxes at the end of the year, of course. But I don't have that choice, unfortunately. However I do not agree that withholding is a free loan. The government has to pay bills through the year, not only in April. Also I understand that many people would not plan enough and would be bankrupt in April if there were no withholdings.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada April/May is typically the period where people get their tax *return*. Since most people pay too much taxes during the year (since it is taken from every pay as if you had no deduction for child, registered savings, etc.), they get a refund after filling their report.
One doesn't exclude the other. A republic simply means that there is no monarch reigning over the country. Adding "constitutional" before it simply means that the basic law is defined in a document, instead of being arbitrarily defined by the feelings of a human being on that day. You can have absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, constitutional republics and I guess even absolute republics (North Korea comes to my mind, as the leader is above the constitution, but is technically not a monarch either, at least on paper).
A democracy simply means that the people have (at least some of the) power. Adding "representative" before it simply means that the people elect representatives, which then votes laws, instead of letting the people vote laws directly.
Pretty much all democracies at the state level are representative, even tough some offer some elements of direct democracy (Switzerland).
There are constitutional monarchies which are also representative democracies, like the UK.
Companies are already pretty much free to lay cables around. Yes, they must have the permits, but some companies such as Google Fiber are doing it, and many more could do it. The problem is not that monopolies are forced by law or that market forces don't apply. The problem is that the barrier to entry is very high. The incumbents can simply lower the prices in a city with a new entrant until it runs out of business. There is nothing different the republicans would do. They have been in power for many years and didn't change anything.
In a world with only cars on the road, there would still be pretty much the same amount of serious injuries on the road. In a world with only bicycles on the road, there would be a lot less.
Also, unless you distribute your macro, your question doesn't apply. You are always free to take GPL code, modify it, and run it yourself without giving the modifications to anyone. You can even make money with that modified code.
Service-providers, that oversell their capacity do not survive for very long either
We are not talking about an ISP or any other service you use often. As a client of a private fire department, how do I know if they oversell their capacity or not? I don't. I need to trust them.
Unless, of course, they are government-owned — the "trick" you described can be (and is) used by government-run fire-teams all the time. A mean annual wage of a New York City firefighter, for example, is over $73K [bls.gov], but they will refuse to even try to save your property, under the noble-sounding rule "We only save lives"
Well I am glad their goal is to save lives first. I would be pissed if a private fire department ever left someone to die while making sure the neighboring empty house didn't catch fire.
Somebody has to evaluate and approve all fire departments
It's a lot mot effective to have a single entity evaluating a single fire department, than multiple insurance companies each evaluating multiple fire departments. Also insurance companies only care about damage loss. Since we are talking about companies insuring houses (and not lifes), why would they care about the ability of private fire departments to save kids' lifes?
Maybe not. Something can be worked-out — after all, we do have private companies running cables (and even pipes [wikipedia.org]) above and under the streets. Any resource available to government-owned firefighters ought to be — and is — available to privately-operated ones.
The public fire hydrant system is efficient, because it rely on a single public free water distribution system. Any fire department having to deploy its own water distribution system would have to charge you a lot more than if it were allowed to use the public one.
This statement makes no sense. Had they been actively involved in extinguishing the (uninsured) house, they would've been even less available for other engagements.
Having them working is efficient. Having them sitting in front of a burning house isn't.
That's called fraud — a criminal act. Do you think, various criminals haven't tried this before? They have and still do [insurancefraud.org], are you going to nationalize all insurance business because of this?
Of course it wouldn't be a fraud. I would have 1-2 employees and a single truck. They would do their best to save the burning house, but they would fail every time.
but insurance companies do — and they will insist, you pick a fire-company from their "approved" list.
Sounds like another bureaucratic non-sense. So you are saying that insurance is more expensive to cover for the fees in order for them to evaluate and approve private fire departments?
Not necessarily. That's entirely up to them. You have mentioned in your previous post, that you find cooperation between neighboring towns' fireteams possible (and desirable). What makes you think, private players would be unable to cooperate with each other?
I am sure they could. My point was just that the city shouldn't be providing a private corporation with free land and free water.
Symbian was on a quick decline, just like Blackberry OS. It was already too late when they were bought. Symbian was already dead, and Nokia already switched to Windows Phone, an OS which never took off.
Windows Phone was too little to late. Most analysts expected strong sales of WP devices by 2015 and it didn't happen. It's not that Windows Phone was bad, only that it didn't bring any advantage for the consumer over what already existed (Android/iOS). Microsoft did everything to attract developers, with good development tools. They didn't come because the users were not there.
Nokia was dying even before being bought by Microsoft. What killed them is Symbian, and their refusal to switch to Android when it was the time (2008/2009). When they decided to switch to Windows Phone, it was already too late.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting the right to smoke weed in the constitution would be as stupid as the right to have guns.
Yes, all countries without this right in the constitution are totalitarian regimes.
My point was that other countries have different levels of gun control. All this without the need to be in the constitution. The right to have a car isn't in the constitution either.
Would you have the same rational for tanks or jet fighters? Nukes?
Yes, it is exactly what I said.
You know that saying that there shouldn't be any gun control because it is a constitutional right is by itself a fallacy, right?
And I wasn't saying that the US shouldn't have gun control because other countries don't. I was just showing that it was possible not to have this "right" in the constitution.
Yeah, as if a revolver would allow you to fight against the government with tanks, nukes and jet fighters.
First, it's not because it's a right that it should be in the constitution. Second, it's not because some people wrote a text in the 18th century that its content is perfect and should not be modified. And last, yes, I call for a constitutional convention to have it amended.
When someone says "there should be more gun control" and then someone replies "but it's a constitutional right", he misses the point completely and could as well say "it is so because it is the way it is", which would be a better argument.
Guns? It's a constitutional right - don't mess with them.
The whole point is that it shouldn't be a constitutional right to have guns. Like it's the case in every other country on Earth I can think of.
What's the goal of this distribution? Why would anyone choose it over Debian testing?
I agree that I would prefer to pay all my income taxes at the end of the year, of course. But I don't have that choice, unfortunately.
However I do not agree that withholding is a free loan. The government has to pay bills through the year, not only in April.
Also I understand that many people would not plan enough and would be bankrupt in April if there were no withholdings.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada April/May is typically the period where people get their tax *return*. Since most people pay too much taxes during the year (since it is taken from every pay as if you had no deduction for child, registered savings, etc.), they get a refund after filling their report.
One doesn't exclude the other.
A republic simply means that there is no monarch reigning over the country. Adding "constitutional" before it simply means that the basic law is defined in a document, instead of being arbitrarily defined by the feelings of a human being on that day.
You can have absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, constitutional republics and I guess even absolute republics (North Korea comes to my mind, as the leader is above the constitution, but is technically not a monarch either, at least on paper).
A democracy simply means that the people have (at least some of the) power. Adding "representative" before it simply means that the people elect representatives, which then votes laws, instead of letting the people vote laws directly.
Pretty much all democracies at the state level are representative, even tough some offer some elements of direct democracy (Switzerland).
There are constitutional monarchies which are also representative democracies, like the UK.
Companies are already pretty much free to lay cables around. Yes, they must have the permits, but some companies such as Google Fiber are doing it, and many more could do it. The problem is not that monopolies are forced by law or that market forces don't apply. The problem is that the barrier to entry is very high. The incumbents can simply lower the prices in a city with a new entrant until it runs out of business.
There is nothing different the republicans would do. They have been in power for many years and didn't change anything.
In a world with only cars on the road, there would still be pretty much the same amount of serious injuries on the road.
In a world with only bicycles on the road, there would be a lot less.
So who is subsidizing who again?
Nothing wrong. It's just that 7zip is just as good and free.
be GPLed.
Also, unless you distribute your macro, your question doesn't apply.
You are always free to take GPL code, modify it, and run it yourself without giving the modifications to anyone. You can even make money with that modified code.
Your macro isn't GPL if you don't want it to. LibreOffice is LGPL to begin with, not GPL.
It's not only AC to DC. It's 120 VAC to 5 VDC. I'd be surprised if cheap phone chargers had more than 75% efficiency in practice. 50% is possible.
Service-providers, that oversell their capacity do not survive for very long either
We are not talking about an ISP or any other service you use often. As a client of a private fire department, how do I know if they oversell their capacity or not? I don't. I need to trust them.
Unless, of course, they are government-owned — the "trick" you described can be (and is) used by government-run fire-teams all the time. A mean annual wage of a New York City firefighter, for example, is over $73K [bls.gov], but they will refuse to even try to save your property, under the noble-sounding rule "We only save lives"
Well I am glad their goal is to save lives first. I would be pissed if a private fire department ever left someone to die while making sure the neighboring empty house didn't catch fire.
Somebody has to evaluate and approve all fire departments
It's a lot mot effective to have a single entity evaluating a single fire department, than multiple insurance companies each evaluating multiple fire departments.
Also insurance companies only care about damage loss. Since we are talking about companies insuring houses (and not lifes), why would they care about the ability of private fire departments to save kids' lifes?
Maybe not. Something can be worked-out — after all, we do have private companies running cables (and even pipes [wikipedia.org]) above and under the streets. Any resource available to government-owned firefighters ought to be — and is — available to privately-operated ones.
The public fire hydrant system is efficient, because it rely on a single public free water distribution system.
Any fire department having to deploy its own water distribution system would have to charge you a lot more than if it were allowed to use the public one.
This statement makes no sense. Had they been actively involved in extinguishing the (uninsured) house, they would've been even less available for other engagements.
Having them working is efficient. Having them sitting in front of a burning house isn't.
That's called fraud — a criminal act. Do you think, various criminals haven't tried this before? They have and still do [insurancefraud.org], are you going to nationalize all insurance business because of this?
Of course it wouldn't be a fraud. I would have 1-2 employees and a single truck. They would do their best to save the burning house, but they would fail every time.
but insurance companies do — and they will insist, you pick a fire-company from their "approved" list.
Sounds like another bureaucratic non-sense. So you are saying that insurance is more expensive to cover for the fees in order for them to evaluate and approve private fire departments?
Not necessarily. That's entirely up to them. You have mentioned in your previous post, that you find cooperation between neighboring towns' fireteams possible (and desirable). What makes you think, private players would be unable to cooperate with each other?
I am sure they could. My point was just that the city shouldn't be providing a private corporation with free land and free water.
Symbian was on a quick decline, just like Blackberry OS. It was already too late when they were bought. Symbian was already dead, and Nokia already switched to Windows Phone, an OS which never took off.
Windows Phone was too little to late. Most analysts expected strong sales of WP devices by 2015 and it didn't happen. It's not that Windows Phone was bad, only that it didn't bring any advantage for the consumer over what already existed (Android/iOS).
Microsoft did everything to attract developers, with good development tools. They didn't come because the users were not there.
Nokia was dying even before being bought by Microsoft. What killed them is Symbian, and their refusal to switch to Android when it was the time (2008/2009). When they decided to switch to Windows Phone, it was already too late.