How is this so different from so-called "scientists" who insist that 96% of the universe is made of dark matter or energy and there are these things called black holes. None of these have ever been discovered to exist in fact, but are only fictional constructs, to bolster current theories of how some people think the universe works.
Many of the early scientists, who discovered the basic principles by which our world operates, believed in the rational God of the Bible and that this God, the Creator of all, created a rational universe with consistent laws that could be explored by observation and experimentation.There is no conflict between scientific facts and the Bible.
It is a scientific fact that can be measured and verified, that the earth is getting warmer. It is in the interpretation of that fact that many people have trouble. There is no way to prove that human activity has any effect one way or the other. There have been warmer and there have been cooler periods of time. It is uniformly assumed that global warming is bad, but is that necessarily so? Most lifeforms do better when it is warm than when it is freezing cold. Rising ocean levels, even if that would happen, is not much of a problem, if it happens over many human generations. I think overall, warm is better than cold.
Science and religion are not intrinsically opposed to one another, but answer different questions with very little overlap from one to the other. Science is very good at describing how things happen that can be perceived by our human senses or extensions thereof. Science is not very good at "why" things happen in the sense of purpose and meaning. When things happen that can be perceived by our human senses, faith is not always necessary, because these things can be independently verified. All religion however is based on believing what somebody wrote, did or said. It turns out that most ordinary life is more like religion in this aspect than science. Most of life is based on faith, trust in someone else. Very few people, if any, check out the maintenance log on an airliner, before they board it. Almost everybody trusts that the person who worked on the brakes of their car did their job diligently. What you believe is not nearly as important as whom you believe and trust. Science cannot really tell us anything about what happens after death. Faith does address that issue, but each person, especially one near-death, has to decide whether to believe and trust whoever it is that purports to have to have some insight into what happens after death. Jesus Christ in particular, but the Bible in general gives us quite a bit of information on the subject, but each person ultimately has to decide whether to believe this information or not. There is no way this can be checked out, especially by science. The information given can be highly illogical to normal ways of thinking, so that method is not open to us, but the simple trust and belief are available.
Thousands of years of recorded human history would tend to agree. That's just crazy.
It is just the human sinful, selfish, warlike nature that constantly comes out of people. Nothing can come out of a person or a box that wasn't in there in the first place. Some people use guns to get their way and others use lawyers.
It took nine years to leak this information. Government efforts to keep information secret was more successful in times past, Governments want to censor everything that is detrimental to them and their increasingly dictatorial rule over the common people. That censorship is getting harder as time goes by, because of the ubiquity of smart phones and other Internet connected camera devices. In earlier times, when the government caught someone with a camera that may have taken some pictures that they did not want to get out into the open, they simply took the film out. When cameras went digital they would often confiscate or destroy such cameras. Nowadays that Is no longer useful, because the digital information has escaped into cyberspace, from which it can't be recalled. That is one of the primary reasons why governments everywhere are desperately trying to control the Internet. They give excuses such as copyright and protecting the children, but those are just that, excuses.
There is one thing that ALL governments everywhere crave, and that is power, absolute power over their subjects and possibly others. All governments also know that information is power and that is why they keep wanting to censor the Internet, to keep their subjects as powerless as possible. That is also why governments want to prohibit ordinary people from having guns. Mao, one of many tyrants march across the stage of history said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun". He might have added that power also comes from a computer now that we are in the age of the Internet. Most governments know that they can't easily grab power directly, so they come up with excuses such as IP laws and other laws to "protect the children".
Of course they don't have to be replaced, but they have to be modified so they can be connected to the Internet in order that they can be remotely compromised by the politicians currently in power or other hackers.
So what is your company involved in, that requires or makes it that much easier to do a job with two monitors? You must be involved with graphics or intensive programming development. What other businesses can you think of that increase job productivity markedly when two monitors are available? I know that if I had the choice between two monitors and one large 30 inch high-resolution monitor, I would pick the latter.
Windows 8 may be better internally than Windows 7, especially for power users such as found here on/., but for most people and businesses it won't matter even one little tiny bit.
You are obviously not a normal user, because you want to use 16 GB of RAM. Those who want to use their computer to surf the web and compose email can easily do this with 2 GB of RAM. Of course now that you have that problem solve with Windows 7, you're all set to edit HD video or immense Photoshop files.
What does Windows 8 do for any user without a touchscreen that Windows 7 won't? As a matter of fact, much of what normal users do can also be done on XP. The way people interact with mobile touchscreen devices is fundamentally different than on an ordinary desktop or laptop computer. Apparently, Apple has understood this, but Microsoft has not yet figured it out. A Swiss Army knife might be fine for camping, but has no place in any kitchen especially one of a restaurant.
In keeping with the mathematical terms you would say that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" are independent variables. Jesus Christ said they are two sides of the same coin. I agree with that. 100 years from now we will both be dead and forgotten, but Jesus Christ will still be worshiped and millions of Bibles will still be printed. Ever since the invention of the art of printing by means of movable type, more Bibles have been printed in more languages than any other book. Do you suppose there might be a reason for this? The Bible stands like an anvil in the center of a blacksmith shop, surrounded by worn out and discarded hammers, including the hammers of skeptics and atheists like you, Voltaire and others. The famous atheist said that in 100 years from his time, Bibles will only be found in museums, but in some countries they are now still found in every hotel room. It is ironic that Voltaire's house is now used by the International Bible Society to disseminate and print thousands of Bibles. Sometimes I think God has a sense of humor.
You are beating around the bush. Regardless of where the idea came from, do you object to the idea of loving your neighbor?
Have you ever read that entire chapter to get an idea of the context and setting wherein Jesus said the part I quoted? Jesus was basically saying is that their entire law is summed up by that one statement. If people truly lived by that, much of our body of laws, would be redundant and unnecessary. There would be no need for gun control, because no one would use guns or anything else that could be used as a weapon for doing anything bad to their fellow human being. Having or not having a gun would be entirely irrelevant. It's too bad that we don't live in such a world.
Can you step away for just a moment from religion and just consider the idea of treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated? If everybody did that, don't you think that this world would be different, far better than it is today? If you don't want to be lied to, don't lie to others, if you don't like to have your stuff stolen, don't steal anybody else's etc.? Do you have any objection to things like that just because they happen to be written in the book you consider a myth?
So what objection do you have the golden rule? You don't think that is a good guideline to live by? Are you opposed to that interpersonal law just because it was was quoted by someone you consider "religious" in an "ancient" book? I think that almost all problems of the world would go away if everybody lived by this simple law.
In the case of the people making the decision of what is right and what is wrong, it would be OK with you if the majority decided there is nothing wrong with declaring certain people as second-class citizens and snuffing them or making them slaves? In the beginning, Hitler was duly elected by the majority of Germans and in the old South the majority elected the folks who thought it was fine to treat certain people as property that could be bought and sold. In countries where the majority supports the Islamic culture, it is perfectly acceptable for husbands to beat and otherwise mistreat their multiple wives and murder "infidels" who have chosen not to believe the prophet Mohammed. Are you OK with that?
I think the answer that Jesus gave in Luke 10:27 concerning human behavior is much better, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." Someone who truly loves their fellow human being, will never say or do anything that they wouldn't like if it were done to them. This has been called the Golden Rule and I think this is orders of magnitude superior to any other guide for human behavior and right and wrong.
I agree with you that corporations and people should be ethical, but who decides what those ethics should be? Is it the politicians or the majority of the voters who elect them? Is it the Supreme Court or other judges? In the United States, the Supreme Court has decided it is legal to murder unborn children, but is it ethical? There used to be a time when most people In the Christian West believed in a God who had formulated certain rules written down in the Bible. Since most people both here and in Europe no longer want God to be the final arbiter of right and wrong, who will have the final word of authority? Who decides and on what basis is a decision made that "I have a duty to my shareholders to fuck everyone over for profit" is NOT ethical? I agree with you that it is not, but then who are you and I to decide that? It is quite apparent to me that most people, at least millions of them, continue to buy products from corporations that you and I do not consider to be ethical. Apple has become one of the richest corporations on earth, despite the fact that many people such as you and I have questions about their ethics. Monsanto is one of the most evil corporations I can think of, yet they continue to prosper because people buy their products. I am so glad that people can't flout God's physical laws the way they do this with his moral edicts. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if humans had the ability to negate the laws of nature?
In court, the spirit of the law is meaningless and void, but what counts is the actual wording of the law as passed by the legislature and subsequent interpretations by other courts previous decisions. If our bought and paid for politicians want to collect taxes from their corporate sponsors, they will have to write the words of the legislation so there is no weasel room. If there are loopholes in any law, it can always, without a single exception be laid at the feet of those who make the laws that have loopholes in them. Making quality products, including just and unambiguous laws is not easy.
If what they did is legal, so what? I take every tax deduction I can legally find, why shouldn't Apple?
Because the world is changing and it's no longer socially acceptable to just pay what's legal, it's considered inappropriate to pay less than what people would consider to be a fair amount. If you're paying $1 of tax on $1000 of earnings because you've cleverly nested your business assets overseas in a complex web of tax avoidance schemes, then most people would consider that unfair, even if it is legal.
Tax avoidance (NB not the same thing as tax evasion) was once considered socially acceptable. Of late there's been a swing the other way and national governments are now putting pressure on organisations to pay their fair share of tax (as opposed to just their legal obligation). Companies that don't conform get "outed" in the media. This bad publicity can cause the companies involved to suffer a punishment of a loss in revenue - the public are less likely to do business with companies they see as not paying their fare share of tax.
Sort of like an extortion racket, except it's okay because it's the government doing it:p
You are a dreamer and don't know the definition of "fair". What is considered fair by one person, is likely to be considered unfair by another. People, (corporations are nothing but groups of people who have united for a common purpose) are not only entitled but even obligated to pay no more taxes than the laws that have been promulgated by their representatives require. Congress critters should simplify all tax laws. Taxes should be ONLY used to raise revenue for government and not try to implement any social agenda of any kind whatsoever. A suitable transaction tax on ALL trade no matter what is traded, bought sold would be one way to implement such a tax. It is sad, but a snowball in hell has a better chance than such a law ever being passed by any of our current politicians.
I don't understand why Congress of all people complains about companies and people using loopholes which they created. If they were not bribed by the very people they are complaining about, they could pass a law that taxes every American company, including Apple, with whatever amount of tax they want to beat out of them. I am sure that Obama would sign any tax bill that raises revenue.
I for one applaud Apple on using the all the help provided by the US government in the way of tax loopholes to minimize its tax liabilities.
If the US government takes issue with any of the legal mechanisms used by Apple they need only change the laws to make them illegal.
What the politicians in Washington really would like to do if they could, is make one set of laws for themselves and their friends, which includes all loopholes and another set of laws for everyone else with no loopholes. They have already done that to some extent by exempting themselves from Social Security and the Obama Care bill. Some companies, such as Monsanto have figured out how to bribe the correct congressman to get laws passed solely in their favor. Apparently Apple, Google and Microsoft and other high-tech companies have not figured that out or stooped that low yet.
I would much rather pay for better law enforcement than all the corporate welfare, bailouts and extending welfare payments to those who don't want to work. Stop handing out welfare payments and extended unemployment, but tell those seeking money to go to work in the farmers fields next to the illegals.
That would greatly reduce the number of people that sneak across the border, taking jobs that Americans should and could be doing. Why is there any business in this country that is too big to fail?
The difference was that under the Third Reich and Communism your neighbor who did not like you for some reason could also report you and have you put into a concentration camp. Unless there is a huge culture change in the US, where squealers and informers are still looked down upon, that system is not likely to work, because there would not be enough squealers and informers.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, informers can report anonymously and then everybody fears everybody. I lived the first 22 years of my life in such a state and I was taught early about things that must not be spoken. It was sad to find out after the Cold War that in the East Germany it was much worse, almost every 3rd comrade was an informer for STASI.
Please don't say "It can't happen to us" because it can - and then it's too late.
I never said that it can't happen here, but that it is unlikely unless the American fundamental attitude toward tattle-tales changes dramatically. When the founding fathers of this country threw off the authoritarian yoke of the British king, the country was infected with a spirit of individual freedom that has never existed in Europe. Germans always acceded to authority and the power of the state far more readily than the much more independent-minded Americans. That is why there is no other country on earth that has the equivalent of the Second Amendment in their Constitution. Maybe this will change in a generation or two.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this so different from so-called "scientists" who insist that 96% of the universe is made of dark matter or energy and there are these things called black holes. None of these have ever been discovered to exist in fact, but are only fictional constructs, to bolster current theories of how some people think the universe works.
Many of the early scientists, who discovered the basic principles by which our world operates, believed in the rational God of the Bible and that this God, the Creator of all, created a rational universe with consistent laws that could be explored by observation and experimentation.There is no conflict between scientific facts and the Bible.
It is a scientific fact that can be measured and verified, that the earth is getting warmer. It is in the interpretation of that fact that many people have trouble. There is no way to prove that human activity has any effect one way or the other. There have been warmer and there have been cooler periods of time. It is uniformly assumed that global warming is bad, but is that necessarily so? Most lifeforms do better when it is warm than when it is freezing cold. Rising ocean levels, even if that would happen, is not much of a problem, if it happens over many human generations. I think overall, warm is better than cold.
Science and religion are not intrinsically opposed to one another, but answer different questions with very little overlap from one to the other. Science is very good at describing how things happen that can be perceived by our human senses or extensions thereof. Science is not very good at "why" things happen in the sense of purpose and meaning. When things happen that can be perceived by our human senses, faith is not always necessary, because these things can be independently verified. All religion however is based on believing what somebody wrote, did or said. It turns out that most ordinary life is more like religion in this aspect than science. Most of life is based on faith, trust in someone else. Very few people, if any, check out the maintenance log on an airliner, before they board it. Almost everybody trusts that the person who worked on the brakes of their car did their job diligently. What you believe is not nearly as important as whom you believe and trust. Science cannot really tell us anything about what happens after death. Faith does address that issue, but each person, especially one near-death, has to decide whether to believe and trust whoever it is that purports to have to have some insight into what happens after death. Jesus Christ in particular, but the Bible in general gives us quite a bit of information on the subject, but each person ultimately has to decide whether to believe this information or not. There is no way this can be checked out, especially by science. The information given can be highly illogical to normal ways of thinking, so that method is not open to us, but the simple trust and belief are available.
Thousands of years of recorded human history would tend to agree. That's just crazy.
It is just the human sinful, selfish, warlike nature that constantly comes out of people. Nothing can come out of a person or a box that wasn't in there in the first place. Some people use guns to get their way and others use lawyers.
It took nine years to leak this information. Government efforts to keep information secret was more successful in times past, Governments want to censor everything that is detrimental to them and their increasingly dictatorial rule over the common people. That censorship is getting harder as time goes by, because of the ubiquity of smart phones and other Internet connected camera devices. In earlier times, when the government caught someone with a camera that may have taken some pictures that they did not want to get out into the open, they simply took the film out. When cameras went digital they would often confiscate or destroy such cameras. Nowadays that Is no longer useful, because the digital information has escaped into cyberspace, from which it can't be recalled. That is one of the primary reasons why governments everywhere are desperately trying to control the Internet. They give excuses such as copyright and protecting the children, but those are just that, excuses.
There is one thing that ALL governments everywhere crave, and that is power, absolute power over their subjects and possibly others. All governments also know that information is power and that is why they keep wanting to censor the Internet, to keep their subjects as powerless as possible. That is also why governments want to prohibit ordinary people from having guns. Mao, one of many tyrants march across the stage of history said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun". He might have added that power also comes from a computer now that we are in the age of the Internet. Most governments know that they can't easily grab power directly, so they come up with excuses such as IP laws and other laws to "protect the children".
Of course they don't have to be replaced, but they have to be modified so they can be connected to the Internet in order that they can be remotely compromised by the politicians currently in power or other hackers.
So what is your company involved in, that requires or makes it that much easier to do a job with two monitors? You must be involved with graphics or intensive programming development. What other businesses can you think of that increase job productivity markedly when two monitors are available? I know that if I had the choice between two monitors and one large 30 inch high-resolution monitor, I would pick the latter.
So what percentage of computer users, both commercial and consumer, use multiple monitors?
Windows 8 may be better internally than Windows 7, especially for power users such as found here on /., but for most people and businesses it won't matter even one little tiny bit.
You are obviously not a normal user, because you want to use 16 GB of RAM. Those who want to use their computer to surf the web and compose email can easily do this with 2 GB of RAM. Of course now that you have that problem solve with Windows 7, you're all set to edit HD video or immense Photoshop files.
What does Windows 8 do for any user without a touchscreen that Windows 7 won't? As a matter of fact, much of what normal users do can also be done on XP. The way people interact with mobile touchscreen devices is fundamentally different than on an ordinary desktop or laptop computer. Apparently, Apple has understood this, but Microsoft has not yet figured it out. A Swiss Army knife might be fine for camping, but has no place in any kitchen especially one of a restaurant.
In keeping with the mathematical terms you would say that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" are independent variables. Jesus Christ said they are two sides of the same coin. I agree with that. 100 years from now we will both be dead and forgotten, but Jesus Christ will still be worshiped and millions of Bibles will still be printed. Ever since the invention of the art of printing by means of movable type, more Bibles have been printed in more languages than any other book. Do you suppose there might be a reason for this? The Bible stands like an anvil in the center of a blacksmith shop, surrounded by worn out and discarded hammers, including the hammers of skeptics and atheists like you, Voltaire and others. The famous atheist said that in 100 years from his time, Bibles will only be found in museums, but in some countries they are now still found in every hotel room. It is ironic that Voltaire's house is now used by the International Bible Society to disseminate and print thousands of Bibles. Sometimes I think God has a sense of humor.
You are beating around the bush. Regardless of where the idea came from, do you object to the idea of loving your neighbor?
Have you ever read that entire chapter to get an idea of the context and setting wherein Jesus said the part I quoted? Jesus was basically saying is that their entire law is summed up by that one statement. If people truly lived by that, much of our body of laws, would be redundant and unnecessary. There would be no need for gun control, because no one would use guns or anything else that could be used as a weapon for doing anything bad to their fellow human being. Having or not having a gun would be entirely irrelevant. It's too bad that we don't live in such a world.
Can you step away for just a moment from religion and just consider the idea of treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated? If everybody did that, don't you think that this world would be different, far better than it is today? If you don't want to be lied to, don't lie to others, if you don't like to have your stuff stolen, don't steal anybody else's etc.? Do you have any objection to things like that just because they happen to be written in the book you consider a myth?
So what objection do you have the golden rule? You don't think that is a good guideline to live by? Are you opposed to that interpersonal law just because it was was quoted by someone you consider "religious" in an "ancient" book? I think that almost all problems of the world would go away if everybody lived by this simple law.
In the case of the people making the decision of what is right and what is wrong, it would be OK with you if the majority decided there is nothing wrong with declaring certain people as second-class citizens and snuffing them or making them slaves? In the beginning, Hitler was duly elected by the majority of Germans and in the old South the majority elected the folks who thought it was fine to treat certain people as property that could be bought and sold. In countries where the majority supports the Islamic culture, it is perfectly acceptable for husbands to beat and otherwise mistreat their multiple wives and murder "infidels" who have chosen not to believe the prophet Mohammed. Are you OK with that?
I think the answer that Jesus gave in Luke 10:27 concerning human behavior is much better, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." Someone who truly loves their fellow human being, will never say or do anything that they wouldn't like if it were done to them. This has been called the Golden Rule and I think this is orders of magnitude superior to any other guide for human behavior and right and wrong.
I agree with you that corporations and people should be ethical, but who decides what those ethics should be? Is it the politicians or the majority of the voters who elect them? Is it the Supreme Court or other judges? In the United States, the Supreme Court has decided it is legal to murder unborn children, but is it ethical? There used to be a time when most people In the Christian West believed in a God who had formulated certain rules written down in the Bible. Since most people both here and in Europe no longer want God to be the final arbiter of right and wrong, who will have the final word of authority? Who decides and on what basis is a decision made that "I have a duty to my shareholders to fuck everyone over for profit" is NOT ethical? I agree with you that it is not, but then who are you and I to decide that? It is quite apparent to me that most people, at least millions of them, continue to buy products from corporations that you and I do not consider to be ethical. Apple has become one of the richest corporations on earth, despite the fact that many people such as you and I have questions about their ethics. Monsanto is one of the most evil corporations I can think of, yet they continue to prosper because people buy their products. I am so glad that people can't flout God's physical laws the way they do this with his moral edicts. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if humans had the ability to negate the laws of nature?
In court, the spirit of the law is meaningless and void, but what counts is the actual wording of the law as passed by the legislature and subsequent interpretations by other courts previous decisions. If our bought and paid for politicians want to collect taxes from their corporate sponsors, they will have to write the words of the legislation so there is no weasel room. If there are loopholes in any law, it can always, without a single exception be laid at the feet of those who make the laws that have loopholes in them. Making quality products, including just and unambiguous laws is not easy.
If what they did is legal, so what? I take every tax deduction I can legally find, why shouldn't Apple?
Because the world is changing and it's no longer socially acceptable to just pay what's legal, it's considered inappropriate to pay less than what people would consider to be a fair amount. If you're paying $1 of tax on $1000 of earnings because you've cleverly nested your business assets overseas in a complex web of tax avoidance schemes, then most people would consider that unfair, even if it is legal.
Tax avoidance (NB not the same thing as tax evasion) was once considered socially acceptable. Of late there's been a swing the other way and national governments are now putting pressure on organisations to pay their fair share of tax (as opposed to just their legal obligation). Companies that don't conform get "outed" in the media. This bad publicity can cause the companies involved to suffer a punishment of a loss in revenue - the public are less likely to do business with companies they see as not paying their fare share of tax.
Sort of like an extortion racket, except it's okay because it's the government doing it :p
You are a dreamer and don't know the definition of "fair". What is considered fair by one person, is likely to be considered unfair by another. People, (corporations are nothing but groups of people who have united for a common purpose) are not only entitled but even obligated to pay no more taxes than the laws that have been promulgated by their representatives require. Congress critters should simplify all tax laws. Taxes should be ONLY used to raise revenue for government and not try to implement any social agenda of any kind whatsoever. A suitable transaction tax on ALL trade no matter what is traded, bought sold would be one way to implement such a tax. It is sad, but a snowball in hell has a better chance than such a law ever being passed by any of our current politicians.
I don't understand why Congress of all people complains about companies and people using loopholes which they created. If they were not bribed by the very people they are complaining about, they could pass a law that taxes every American company, including Apple, with whatever amount of tax they want to beat out of them. I am sure that Obama would sign any tax bill that raises revenue.
I for one applaud Apple on using the all the help provided by the US government in the way of tax loopholes to minimize its tax liabilities.
If the US government takes issue with any of the legal mechanisms used by Apple they need only change the laws to make them illegal.
What the politicians in Washington really would like to do if they could, is make one set of laws for themselves and their friends, which includes all loopholes and another set of laws for everyone else with no loopholes. They have already done that to some extent by exempting themselves from Social Security and the Obama Care bill. Some companies, such as Monsanto have figured out how to bribe the correct congressman to get laws passed solely in their favor. Apparently Apple, Google and Microsoft and other high-tech companies have not figured that out or stooped that low yet.
I would much rather pay for better law enforcement than all the corporate welfare, bailouts and extending welfare payments to those who don't want to work. Stop handing out welfare payments and extended unemployment, but tell those seeking money to go to work in the farmers fields next to the illegals.
That would greatly reduce the number of people that sneak across the border, taking jobs that Americans should and could be doing. Why is there any business in this country that is too big to fail?
The difference was that under the Third Reich and Communism your neighbor who did not like you for some reason could also report you and have you put into a concentration camp. Unless there is a huge culture change in the US, where squealers and informers are still looked down upon, that system is not likely to work, because there would not be enough squealers and informers.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, informers can report anonymously and then everybody fears everybody. I lived the first 22 years of my life in such a state and I was taught early about things that must not be spoken. It was sad to find out after the Cold War that in the East Germany it was much worse, almost every 3rd comrade was an informer for STASI.
Please don't say "It can't happen to us" because it can - and then it's too late.
I never said that it can't happen here, but that it is unlikely unless the American fundamental attitude toward tattle-tales changes dramatically. When the founding fathers of this country threw off the authoritarian yoke of the British king, the country was infected with a spirit of individual freedom that has never existed in Europe. Germans always acceded to authority and the power of the state far more readily than the much more independent-minded Americans. That is why there is no other country on earth that has the equivalent of the Second Amendment in their Constitution. Maybe this will change in a generation or two.