Well basically, as I see it, the 2nd amendment (with help from the 1st, 10th, 5th and 4th) is the ultimate check and balance in the foundation of the government.
The government is required to be subservient to the people. It's power derives solely from us. When this is no longer the case, the government needs to be overthrown by the people and a new one installed instead.
While I agree that your examples were hardly members of a well-regulated militia, the power of the militia derives from the people and not from the government. Ergo, it has to be self-regulating, so as to not give the government a loophole (e.g. all militiamen must be supporters of the present government). This basically requires people to not be crazies who go around shooting other people, and is all a part of members of society generally acting in a moral fashion.
However, this is a very tricky thing to get into writing in a way that will still make clear that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right and cannot be taken away at all. That's what the Bill of Rights is, you know: a list of natural rights, not a list of rights granted by the government. We're lost if we start to think that the government grants us those rights.
The best weopon against the governement is to convince the army to join you
Quite so. The amazing balancing act has been to keep the military distrustful of the government so that they'll side with the people (who are more important than the government) in case of revolution. But at the same time, the military has to accept civilian oversight, and itself also be subservient to the people.
Generally we've accomplished this by having no standing military at all, or at least a very, very small one. Unfortunately after WW2 we have been maintaining a relatively large standing military. Combined with the mindset of cold war politicians and government workers who are willing to destroy the US to save it (that is stop acting on the principles which the country was founded on in order to keep the name around and avoid communists) this has been kind of bad.
But it's not just me...there's a great story that I've heard (passed down through many others, of course.) about a Microsoft Marketing Drone and David Corn.
Ooh, now you have to tell it. I really don't like marketdroids, and this sucks for me b/c I do graphic design and frequently take orders from them.
Do bear in mind that this is a fairly new trend in American culture. Approximately a century ago the glory went to those who were hardworking, sensible and responsible. Sure, there were still plenty of social problems, but I doubt that anyone aspired to be immature as you describe above.
What really sucks though, is that it's damn near impossible to be mature in an immature society. It's rather like the way that Confucism (hardly the worst basis for a society) breaks severely in an environment where significant groups don't behave correctly and don't fall into line.
Any attempt for responsible values to take back control would have to be run on a pretty large scale, and if one of those values is 'mind your own business' then I doubt it'll happen. Pity.
Replying to your points: 1) As was noted already in today's earlier MS article, it is highly unlikely that MS will be forced to open their source. Additionally, it doesn't really address the problem. I personally suspect that MS will be required to drastically change their licensing but that that's about it. 2)Any company at all that makes sick amounts of money can only be penalized the same way everyone else is: taxes. But if you make this money by engaging in illegal actions (e.g. MS, the Mafia, selling stolen goods) then you're in a whole different boat. Are you arguing that well-paid hit men are accused of having too much money? That's _not_ the point, though tax evasion on illegal income is useful in convicting them. 3)Again, this is only going to get you in trouble if it's done in an illegal manner. If I give you IE for free, I'm breaking the law, cause it's not mine to give. If MS forces you to give IE away for free, they are also breaking the law.
And the Constitution, while not directly IIRC regulating commerce, gives Congress the power to do so, and you're forgetting about the elastic clause anyway.
The argument against illegal monopolies is basically that, AFAIK (IANAL) the lack of competition - particularly if the only reason there's no competition is due to predatory business practices and not real consumer choice - harms consumers.
Were MS the only OS provider in the world (they'd like to be) and then entered a seperate market by exerting the power of a lawfully gained OS monopoly (like saying "When you buy Windows you have to buy Office as well, or you get nothing") this is a problem. Many consumers don't want Office, but they get it anyway. Competitors have a harder time and the anti-Office consumers are harmed when the products they do use go away.
Additionally, without competition stagnation rapidly sets in as has been shown in virtually every case of a monopoly. The ATT case is a good example of this. Telcos are flourishing now. They weren't 15 years ago. Prevent MS from breaking the law and squishing valuable competition before it can start and you'll soon see a flourishing marketplace. If MS were a person, he'd be the sort that likes cutting down saplings because someday they might ruin his view.
Heh. There is no precident to be set. Computer businesses are businesses. Businesses are subject to regulation by the government. It even says so in the constitution.
MS is not being tried b/c of some particular product or feature. It's being tried b/c it broke a law relating to how businesses are permitted to compete. If they were in any other field they'd still be getting tried.
MS is the most dominant company invovled with computing today. But they're not necessarily well-liked by many of the people that frequent/.
So we like to read about the case (which has been getting heavy coverage in major media outlets too, you know) and many of us like to cheer for the Government, seeing as how they represent everyone that is not actually MS.
o/~...root, root, root for the home team, if they don't win it's a shame... o/~
I tend to side with FPSs; they've truly influenced my life.
Whenever I go out, there are always high-powered weapons and boxes of ammuniton for the same lying about. Even missiles! I can carry enormous amounts of stuff and still run all day. If I get hurt I just find a piece of food that's sitting on the ground and touch it to regain my strength. I have been considering a career change to lumberjack, as I have a chainsaw which never runs out of gas. But for right now I just walk into various buildings and such and take what I want. Since there are only three keys in the entire world, only buildings with yellow doors are secure against me.
I just wish that I could jump, duck, swim, or look up and down.
Well... I don't know how familiar you are with this industry, but the stuff described in the article was basically using Linux boxen for file servers and RIPs. The first of these tasks is generic, though the files will be larger than you'd see in an office. RIPs, when they're used (typically only for high-end proofs and imagesetting - important but not as a workstation or creative tool) are already typically NT or Unix systems. I see SGI RIPs a lot, but remember that the RIP software is all proprietary.
Neither of these have to do with the designer workstations, and those are what I'm referring to as being all basically all Mac. It's not as though graphic designers insist on a Mac email server either, you know.
But this doesn't mean that Linux 'isn't that far off' [from being a comprehensive solution] by a longshot.
So...whaddya suppose the USCF enlisted insignia will look like? Chevrons with a string of ones and zeroes instead of stars, "crows," crossed rifles etc?
Lightning Bolts seem to have become the default for the idea of just about anything electronic in the government - take a look at the NSA seal, for instance. So I'd expect something like that, though it would be a bit more accurate if the eagle were overweight, wore glasses and had Spock ears;)
The only well-accepted non-Macs I know of in DTP are turnkey RIPs. Usually in my experience they're SGI's. But it's not as though anyone has to do much with them unless there's a particularly demanding project or something unusual.
I've seen people try to use IBMs for PageMaker. I laughed, and indeed they had a huge amount of trouble keeping it working. Inclined as I am to blame PageMaker, I did grow up on it, so I feel the IBM was at fault.
Ah, but iMacs are so amazingly uniform in design that it should be simple to make a boot CD for all iMacs, including support for USB devices like Zips and such. I think that it would sell pretty nicely.
In addition to the other comments, there is also the issue of prior investments. Do you have any idea how much good DTP software costs? Quark alone is nearly $1000. Photoshop is ~$600. Illustrator is ~$400. Freehand is about the same. And let's not even get into various plug ins and highly specific utilities etc.
Plus, there are FONTS. Not only would large numbers of fonts have to be repurchased, or tediously converted from the Mac to Windows (or whatever), but it is of critical importance that everyone use the same damn fonts as everyone else, or you'll wind up with type scattered all over the place.
The massive number of entrenched Macs (who won in this market fair and square) and tendancy of graphic designers to not want to learn a new platform now that they've used the Mac for years (computers are generally thought of as handy tools, but not ends of themselves) provide more inertia than even Bill can overcome.
Macs have a crappy OS in fact, though there's a good GUI and some nice APIs on top of it, but it's better for graphics b/c of the above reasons. If you were starting from scratch and worked in a vacuum you might use Windows. Linux doesn't have the right tools and support yet.
The Marines are technically part of the Navy, although AFAIK (I'm not a Marine) they tend to do just as much stuff seperately as they do together. I'm sure someone more knowledgable can correct me here.
Also, I have a hunch that if there were some kind of stupid 'cyber force' (boy would it not keep _that_ name) it would probably start out as a part of the Air Force. Just my instinct.
No, you're thinking of the KJV Bible. In the English of the day, the word 'kill' meant what we now think of as 'murder.' Their equivalent for 'kill' for non-murder killings (e.g. on the battlefield) would be 'slay.'
So the guys translating it knew that it was okay to kill people under certain circumstances, but not okay to murder them. Then the language changed.
English changes a lot, and that's really cool, but unfortunately we end up in the pretty unique situation of not being able to read comparitively recent documents. God help you if you want to read anything earlier than Chaucer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well basically, as I see it, the 2nd amendment (with help from the 1st, 10th, 5th and 4th) is the ultimate check and balance in the foundation of the government.
The government is required to be subservient to the people. It's power derives solely from us. When this is no longer the case, the government needs to be overthrown by the people and a new one installed instead.
While I agree that your examples were hardly members of a well-regulated militia, the power of the militia derives from the people and not from the government. Ergo, it has to be self-regulating, so as to not give the government a loophole (e.g. all militiamen must be supporters of the present government). This basically requires people to not be crazies who go around shooting other people, and is all a part of members of society generally acting in a moral fashion.
However, this is a very tricky thing to get into writing in a way that will still make clear that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right and cannot be taken away at all. That's what the Bill of Rights is, you know: a list of natural rights, not a list of rights granted by the government. We're lost if we start to think that the government grants us those rights.
Quite so. The amazing balancing act has been to keep the military distrustful of the government so that they'll side with the people (who are more important than the government) in case of revolution. But at the same time, the military has to accept civilian oversight, and itself also be subservient to the people.
Generally we've accomplished this by having no standing military at all, or at least a very, very small one. Unfortunately after WW2 we have been maintaining a relatively large standing military. Combined with the mindset of cold war politicians and government workers who are willing to destroy the US to save it (that is stop acting on the principles which the country was founded on in order to keep the name around and avoid communists) this has been kind of bad.
Ooh, now you have to tell it. I really don't like marketdroids, and this sucks for me b/c I do graphic design and frequently take orders from them.
Do bear in mind that this is a fairly new trend in American culture. Approximately a century ago the glory went to those who were hardworking, sensible and responsible. Sure, there were still plenty of social problems, but I doubt that anyone aspired to be immature as you describe above.
What really sucks though, is that it's damn near impossible to be mature in an immature society. It's rather like the way that Confucism (hardly the worst basis for a society) breaks severely in an environment where significant groups don't behave correctly and don't fall into line.
Any attempt for responsible values to take back control would have to be run on a pretty large scale, and if one of those values is 'mind your own business' then I doubt it'll happen. Pity.
Eva's okay, but I want Escaflowne on DVD.
;)
and maybe some really loud speakers so that my neighbors can enjoy it too
No, Jobs is an asshole, Woz is a god (note use of present tense)
...what we know in Latin as a 'Dorkus Malorkus.'
Turns out that the optical tech used in the new MS mouse was actually developed by HP. Go figure.
Testify, brother!
Testify, brother!
Five bucks says that civilization is doomed because Mr. Coffee is not Y2K compliant. :)
He was busy building a nuclear reactor out of chewing gum and shoelaces for ABC, obviously.
(Oh, Richard Dean Anderson will be in my dreams tonight)
Turns out that dictators and slave traders are backed by the video game companies. Go figure.
I do not speak for my employer, Deathrayco Corp.
1) As was noted already in today's earlier MS article, it is highly unlikely that MS will be forced to open their source. Additionally, it doesn't really address the problem. I personally suspect that MS will be required to drastically change their licensing but that that's about it.
2)Any company at all that makes sick amounts of money can only be penalized the same way everyone else is: taxes. But if you make this money by engaging in illegal actions (e.g. MS, the Mafia, selling stolen goods) then you're in a whole different boat. Are you arguing that well-paid hit men are accused of having too much money? That's _not_ the point, though tax evasion on illegal income is useful in convicting them.
3)Again, this is only going to get you in trouble if it's done in an illegal manner. If I give you IE for free, I'm breaking the law, cause it's not mine to give. If MS forces you to give IE away for free, they are also breaking the law.
And the Constitution, while not directly IIRC regulating commerce, gives Congress the power to do so, and you're forgetting about the elastic clause anyway.
The argument against illegal monopolies is basically that, AFAIK (IANAL) the lack of competition - particularly if the only reason there's no competition is due to predatory business practices and not real consumer choice - harms consumers.
Were MS the only OS provider in the world (they'd like to be) and then entered a seperate market by exerting the power of a lawfully gained OS monopoly (like saying "When you buy Windows you have to buy Office as well, or you get nothing") this is a problem. Many consumers don't want Office, but they get it anyway. Competitors have a harder time and the anti-Office consumers are harmed when the products they do use go away.
Additionally, without competition stagnation rapidly sets in as has been shown in virtually every case of a monopoly. The ATT case is a good example of this. Telcos are flourishing now. They weren't 15 years ago. Prevent MS from breaking the law and squishing valuable competition before it can start and you'll soon see a flourishing marketplace. If MS were a person, he'd be the sort that likes cutting down saplings because someday they might ruin his view.
Heh. There is no precident to be set. Computer businesses are businesses. Businesses are subject to regulation by the government. It even says so in the constitution.
MS is not being tried b/c of some particular product or feature. It's being tried b/c it broke a law relating to how businesses are permitted to compete. If they were in any other field they'd still be getting tried.
Computing is a red herring.
So we like to read about the case (which has been getting heavy coverage in major media outlets too, you know) and many of us like to cheer for the Government, seeing as how they represent everyone that is not actually MS.
o/~ ...root, root, root for the home team, if they don't win it's a shame... o/~
I tend to side with FPSs; they've truly influenced my life.
Whenever I go out, there are always high-powered weapons and boxes of ammuniton for the same lying about. Even missiles! I can carry enormous amounts of stuff and still run all day. If I get hurt I just find a piece of food that's sitting on the ground and touch it to regain my strength. I have been considering a career change to lumberjack, as I have a chainsaw which never runs out of gas. But for right now I just walk into various buildings and such and take what I want. Since there are only three keys in the entire world, only buildings with yellow doors are secure against me.
I just wish that I could jump, duck, swim, or look up and down.
Well... I don't know how familiar you are with this industry, but the stuff described in the article was basically using Linux boxen for file servers and RIPs. The first of these tasks is generic, though the files will be larger than you'd see in an office. RIPs, when they're used (typically only for high-end proofs and imagesetting - important but not as a workstation or creative tool) are already typically NT or Unix systems. I see SGI RIPs a lot, but remember that the RIP software is all proprietary.
Neither of these have to do with the designer workstations, and those are what I'm referring to as being all basically all Mac. It's not as though graphic designers insist on a Mac email server either, you know.
But this doesn't mean that Linux 'isn't that far off' [from being a comprehensive solution] by a longshot.
Lightning Bolts seem to have become the default for the idea of just about anything electronic in the government - take a look at the NSA seal, for instance. So I'd expect something like that, though it would be a bit more accurate if the eagle were overweight, wore glasses and had Spock ears ;)
The only well-accepted non-Macs I know of in DTP are turnkey RIPs. Usually in my experience they're SGI's. But it's not as though anyone has to do much with them unless there's a particularly demanding project or something unusual.
I've seen people try to use IBMs for PageMaker. I laughed, and indeed they had a huge amount of trouble keeping it working. Inclined as I am to blame PageMaker, I did grow up on it, so I feel the IBM was at fault.
Ah, but iMacs are so amazingly uniform in design that it should be simple to make a boot CD for all iMacs, including support for USB devices like Zips and such. I think that it would sell pretty nicely.
In addition to the other comments, there is also the issue of prior investments. Do you have any idea how much good DTP software costs? Quark alone is nearly $1000. Photoshop is ~$600. Illustrator is ~$400. Freehand is about the same. And let's not even get into various plug ins and highly specific utilities etc.
Plus, there are FONTS. Not only would large numbers of fonts have to be repurchased, or tediously converted from the Mac to Windows (or whatever), but it is of critical importance that everyone use the same damn fonts as everyone else, or you'll wind up with type scattered all over the place.
The massive number of entrenched Macs (who won in this market fair and square) and tendancy of graphic designers to not want to learn a new platform now that they've used the Mac for years (computers are generally thought of as handy tools, but not ends of themselves) provide more inertia than even Bill can overcome.
Macs have a crappy OS in fact, though there's a good GUI and some nice APIs on top of it, but it's better for graphics b/c of the above reasons. If you were starting from scratch and worked in a vacuum you might use Windows. Linux doesn't have the right tools and support yet.
The Marines are technically part of the Navy, although AFAIK (I'm not a Marine) they tend to do just as much stuff seperately as they do together. I'm sure someone more knowledgable can correct me here.
Also, I have a hunch that if there were some kind of stupid 'cyber force' (boy would it not keep _that_ name) it would probably start out as a part of the Air Force. Just my instinct.
No, you're thinking of the KJV Bible. In the English of the day, the word 'kill' meant what we now think of as 'murder.' Their equivalent for 'kill' for non-murder killings (e.g. on the battlefield) would be 'slay.'
So the guys translating it knew that it was okay to kill people under certain circumstances, but not okay to murder them. Then the language changed.
English changes a lot, and that's really cool, but unfortunately we end up in the pretty unique situation of not being able to read comparitively recent documents. God help you if you want to read anything earlier than Chaucer.