And this view is explicitly supported in the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Please note that Congress is expressly denied the power to limit rights, enumerated or not. This can only come about through a Constitutional amendment. Something that people selectively forget about when it comes to their favorite hot button.
Kilgore might be right. After decades of watching the political process in action I'd say that over time it's become considerably worse; or perhaps, that the people who supposedly represent us are less interested in appearing to care than they once were.
Trying to enact effective laws to correct course is an impossible task, as others have pointed out. Campaign finance reform? From a corrupt congress? I don't think so. Term limits? From the guys who spend their whole lives trying to stay in office as long as possible? Fat chance. Doing away with the electoral college so that a vote from Rhode Island counts as much as a vote from California? Not on your life!
The system that we have seems to be failing in major ways, unable to adapt to a changing world; and like any organization that finds itself incapable of adapting and under increasingly vocal critical scrutiny it lashes out with action intended to silence the critics and establish effective control over those that might upset the apple cart.
Call me a pessimist, but I no longer believe that it's possible to repair my government through established means - including electing the right officials (my choices in the last presidential election: Gore and Bush. Aside from the last name, what exactly were the major differences between the two? And everyone else, including Nader, was completely sidelined). When your choices for candidates all come from the same money-ticket you have zero chance of getting Congress or the President to substantially alter the system. Even the courts, which until recently I held out as the last possible hope for a strong check on government excess, don't seem to be immune from being influenced to toss aside their views and vote in line with the power structure (Supreme Court...a complete about-face on the 14th amendment re the presidential election...a refusal to substantially justify the decision...etc.)
I don't advocate a violent 1776 response, although our Forefathers certainly did (and published many papers on why armed revolution against an unresponsive government was a dandy thing). I don't have a particular yen to get shot rushing the Capitol building. But if my government decides that it won't listen to me, and will even attempt to coerce me into accepting limited freedoms (or none at all), then perhaps I'm no longer obligated to pay attention to my government on a number of issues.
The question for me becomes: which issues? And if a sufficiently large number of people react in this manner, won't the government - like all governments throughout history - resort to violence to enforce its edicts? No power structure can stand to be ignored; loved or hated, yes, but ignored? No way.
So if the established system won't respond, what do I do outside of the established system as a form of protest?
To paraphrase: "better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished."
But then, the person who said this was just a silly idealist without any concept of how the 'real world' works, so we shouldn't give him any credence....
Reps that don't value a 20th century way of communicating over a 21st century way of communicating because they don't understand the 'new-fangled' variety.
Reps that actually use email.
Reps that live in the 21st century.
Vote for people who live in this world, and not the one they grew up in.
How many times does it need to be said. Politicians who refuse to adapt to the 21st century and insist on paying attention only to dead-tree correspondence should be replaced by someone who actually lives in something like the same world as everyone else.
There's no reason anyone should insist that we cater to the politicians; it's their job to cater to *us*. And that includes using the 21st century communication medium of choice - email.
I would change the direct voting system to allow for a vote one day each month, *after the final proposal has been on the table six months*. That is, once the final bill has been drafted it has to sit around six months before it can be voted on. This allows plenty of time for debate, as well as the opportunity to avoid 'knee-jerk law passing' following some emotional event (think Columbine, or Sept. 11th).
You're missing the point. The courts have explicitly stated that the Fourth Amendment applies to snail mail; the government can't open and read my mail without a warrant (whether they actually do is a question for another conversation).
The courts have refused to provide the same protection for email, even though I see no functional difference between email and snail mail. Because the courts *won't* apply the Fourth Amendment to email, *I* apply it myself with encryption.
I use encryption when I don't want other people to read my email. My mail isn't anyone's business, whether it goes via the post or over the net. In fact, I have a right to privacy:
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to include snailmail and phone conversations. I see no reason why email should be different, yet because my government seems to hold a different view I use encryption.
To insinuate that a private citizen other than a 12-year-old girl would have no use for encryption unless they were a terrorist or a criminal is just plain stupid, not to mention irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the content of my letters is boring and trivial, I still have a right to privacy.
How long would such a robot last? I flail in the general direction of my alarm clock until I hit the snooze button; if the robot doesn't 'snooze' I can guarrantee you it'd be flung hard into a wall the first time it hunted me down and sounded the alarm.
I think the ghoul factor had alot to do with the various networks playing the footage of the planes slamming into the WTC time and time again. But I wonder where the ghoul factor was most prevalent: among the American public, or the networks, who were probably pissing themselves silly with dreams of record ratings?
Frankly, there came a point early on during the broadcasts when I couldn't take seeing the planes crash into the towers for the umpteenth time. Every time I saw that my stomache rolled and eventually I thought "dear christ, hasn't everyone seen that by now? Would you stop interspersing those fucking videos with the commentary before I puke? Shithead vampire assholes...."
The primary reason I turned to net-based news was because the networks seemsed *almost gleeful* in their desire to play those goddamned tapes over and over again, superimposed on whatever broadcast was currently taking place. Funny, I didn't get a vicarious thrill out of seeing what might have been at the time up to 50,000 people die, on TV. I wonder if perhaps a good many other Americans felt the same way, and turned to the net for their news to avoid losing their lunch.
But then I don't slow down at car wrecks and crane my head out the window to see if I can catch a glimpse of body parts, either, so maybe I'm just a freak that way....
Looks like a Linux company in the making. Two goals: a) test the kernel as well as popular apps and release reports of the results on the web, and b) take the current (often cryptic) FAQs and HOWTOs and write *understandable* books on various topics. Books which can be bought in paper form or downloaded from the aforementioned web site for a much smaller fee. Or parts of books/documentation which can be ordered via a web-based index system for just those problems that the user wishes to address.
The only weak point that I see in Linux (OS and apps) is the documentation, much of which generally sucks because it was written by someone with little skill in stringing non-code-oriented sentences together. Or because the person who was writing the documentation was actually pretty good at it, but took a great many things for granted that utterly confuse a newcomer to Linux. I think a company like this, if it did the job well, would make a tidy profit - especially with the Linux adoption rate growing as it is.
If any non-neo-nazi management-types are up to creating such a company I'd be happy to write some of the books/chapters/documents in question. Scratch an itch and make money at something I like to do at the same time.
Assuming you're willing to pay me enough to pry me away from teaching children about computers, of course. So far no job that I've had beats teaching middle school students!
You missed the point. Linux is a kernel, a piece of software, and thus is entirely incapable of any sort of competition. Linux does not compete with Windows.
*People* who use Linux sometimes compete with *people* who use Windows, and vice versa. Linus and the primary developers of Linux are not among those people. They aren't beholden to those people, they aren't required to adopt the views of those people, and they most certainly aren't obligated to yield to your demands on the matter.
They don't care what you think, and there's nothing you can do to change that. And that's precisely the way it should be.
THe linux kernel is by far the most buggy POS "kernel" that I have ever come across in 20 years of coding!
Then stop using it. You'll be happier and we won't have to listen to you bitch and moan. Everyone is better off.
It is not fair to make thhe public do *your* testing for you. It is *your* responsibility to do what it takes to prevent such unforgivable disasters as 2.4.1 and 2.4.11.
And this is where I have to say "blow it out your ear, loser". The people who code the Linux kernel for free aren't responsible to you or anyone else, regardless of what you may think. There is no, has never been, and will never be, a warranty with Linux.
You use the kernel at your own risk; hell, this is a standard disclaimer in all releases. If you don't like the risk use another OS.
I won't even go into how often MS has made the public do its beta testing, and they do have an implied obligation on quality (you bought it), whereas Linux does not (you get it for free, so stop whining).
What is clearly "plain and utter bullshit" is your childish bitching.
You aren't "forced" to do anything in the OSS world. If you aren't happy with the way that Linux is progressing, switch to some other OS. No one's putting a gun to your head, no one's trying to lock you into a licensing scheme, and no one will give a rat's ass if you decide to ditch Linux for something else.
Or better yet, get off your ass and help with the coding. It's certainly more productive than whining about a kernel that doesn't meet your specs.
Max
Re:Microsoft turned their backs on...
on
J#
·
· Score: 1
Haven't you read the Halloween Documents? A core Microsoft strategy is to add extensions to open protocols, in effect 'embracing and extending'. In MS's own words, they "de-commoditize protocols" in order to render them less-than-useful on anything other than MS's own sofware.
MS did this with Java to dilute the threat that Java originally presented by promising to be truly cross-platform. It worked, and it worked well. It's no surprise they're trying to do it again.
If you have any doubt of this you can read the documents for yourself at: http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
So essentially you turn cross-language spaghetti coding into something that looks like a strength?
This must be great news for all the half-assed programmers in the world who otherwise wouldn't be able to get a job. Now.NET is guarranteed to provide them one, if just to maintain some part of the mess in which they have a vague understanding of what's going on.
Not true. A third party couldn't distinguish between the two. However, *I* could - I'm only in one body, after all.
Third party verification isn't required for me to make an informed judgement as to which body I'm actually in. Opening my eyes would do the trick. And from that point I'd know if I were the original, or the copy.
This would be absolute physical verification of identity. *It doesn't matter if anyone else can do the verifying - only if you can*.
Ten seconds of sustained thought over any one of these issues would cleary expose the gaping holes in the logic of legislation which limits the freedoms of citizens while doing nothing to constrain terrorism. Another ten seconds and you'll start to wonder *why* this proposed legislation exists when it would have done nothing to thwart Sept. 11, nor any future Sept. 11 that may take place.
It's about power, of course. Just another attempt by a bunch of malevolent control freaks to strip their subjects of their hard-won rights and institute something as close to a sitting dictatorship as possible. A little step here, a little step there, beat the terrorism/communism/war-on-drugs drums, play upon the fears of your people until they literally beg you to take their rights away - and for what? For an illusion of safety that can never, ever be fulfilled.
The power-hungry are coming out of the woodwork in America. It's a great time for tin-pot dictators to be alive, since they have the opportunity to capitalize upon the tragedy of Sept. 11. They don't actually *care* about 6,000 dead Americans, only how they can use the bodies - and the video footage - to amass yet more power to make others do things they don't want to do.
And really, it's getting close to their last chance to do so. After failing utterly to commercialize the internet and put a halt to a burgeoning new paradigm which redefines (in a small but growing way) how the world *might* work, if we wish it so, the only way to put the brakes on thought - and that's what we're talking about here, unapproved thinking outside of the box - is to restrict it in whatever fashion is available. If you can't conquer the internet, wrap it in laws and cover it in fear of what the government might do to you if you say the wrong thing, go to the wrong place, post the wrong comments. Make it clear that the internet has been compromised and that you *will* be bent over and fucked up the ass if you protest; kill the whole experiment before it can take off and ream the little dictators with the creation of a place they can't control, can't regulate, can't constrain.
Unregulated thought combined with unregulated communication is the absolute worst nightmare of those who yearn to control others. It's no wonder they sponsor bills aimed at bludgeoning the nascent freedoms provided by the internet to death. And it's no wonder that so many other power groups, especially entrenched commercial entities, are more than happy to line up behind the dictators and give them their full support.
Now is the time for the malicious and power-hungry to make their move. So far, it looks like they've managed to buy most of the American government.
If they win, what's next? Twenty years of martial law? Suspended elections? Will Heinlein have the last laugh after all?
Exactly! Every candidate I've ever liked has been sabotaged long before they ever reach the finals. I've done my part and voted my conscience, but really - just look at the last presidential election. Al Gore and George Bush, two sides of the same coin, and Nader (a fanatic that I don't care for) so slandered by the press that virtually no one voted for him.
Slashdot Mirror
And this view is explicitly supported in the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Please note that Congress is expressly denied the power to limit rights, enumerated or not. This can only come about through a Constitutional amendment. Something that people selectively forget about when it comes to their favorite hot button.
Max
Kilgore might be right. After decades of watching the political process in action I'd say that over time it's become considerably worse; or perhaps, that the people who supposedly represent us are less interested in appearing to care than they once were.
Trying to enact effective laws to correct course is an impossible task, as others have pointed out. Campaign finance reform? From a corrupt congress? I don't think so. Term limits? From the guys who spend their whole lives trying to stay in office as long as possible? Fat chance. Doing away with the electoral college so that a vote from Rhode Island counts as much as a vote from California? Not on your life!
The system that we have seems to be failing in major ways, unable to adapt to a changing world; and like any organization that finds itself incapable of adapting and under increasingly vocal critical scrutiny it lashes out with action intended to silence the critics and establish effective control over those that might upset the apple cart.
Call me a pessimist, but I no longer believe that it's possible to repair my government through established means - including electing the right officials (my choices in the last presidential election: Gore and Bush. Aside from the last name, what exactly were the major differences between the two? And everyone else, including Nader, was completely sidelined). When your choices for candidates all come from the same money-ticket you have zero chance of getting Congress or the President to substantially alter the system. Even the courts, which until recently I held out as the last possible hope for a strong check on government excess, don't seem to be immune from being influenced to toss aside their views and vote in line with the power structure (Supreme Court...a complete about-face on the 14th amendment re the presidential election...a refusal to substantially justify the decision...etc.)
I don't advocate a violent 1776 response, although our Forefathers certainly did (and published many papers on why armed revolution against an unresponsive government was a dandy thing). I don't have a particular yen to get shot rushing the Capitol building. But if my government decides that it won't listen to me, and will even attempt to coerce me into accepting limited freedoms (or none at all), then perhaps I'm no longer obligated to pay attention to my government on a number of issues.
The question for me becomes: which issues? And if a sufficiently large number of people react in this manner, won't the government - like all governments throughout history - resort to violence to enforce its edicts? No power structure can stand to be ignored; loved or hated, yes, but ignored? No way.
So if the established system won't respond, what do I do outside of the established system as a form of protest?
Max
To paraphrase: "better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished."
But then, the person who said this was just a silly idealist without any concept of how the 'real world' works, so we shouldn't give him any credence....
Max
Reps that actually use email.
Reps that actually use email.
Reps that live in the 21st century.
Reps that actually use email.
Reps that don't value a 20th century way of communicating over a 21st century way of communicating because they don't understand the 'new-fangled' variety.
Reps that actually use email.
Reps that live in the 21st century.
Vote for people who live in this world, and not the one they grew up in.
Thank you.
Max
How many times does it need to be said. Politicians who refuse to adapt to the 21st century and insist on paying attention only to dead-tree correspondence should be replaced by someone who actually lives in something like the same world as everyone else.
There's no reason anyone should insist that we cater to the politicians; it's their job to cater to *us*. And that includes using the 21st century communication medium of choice - email.
Max
I would change the direct voting system to allow for a vote one day each month, *after the final proposal has been on the table six months*. That is, once the final bill has been drafted it has to sit around six months before it can be voted on. This allows plenty of time for debate, as well as the opportunity to avoid 'knee-jerk law passing' following some emotional event (think Columbine, or Sept. 11th).
Max
You're missing the point. The courts have explicitly stated that the Fourth Amendment applies to snail mail; the government can't open and read my mail without a warrant (whether they actually do is a question for another conversation).
The courts have refused to provide the same protection for email, even though I see no functional difference between email and snail mail. Because the courts *won't* apply the Fourth Amendment to email, *I* apply it myself with encryption.
Max
And how does this make being deconstructed *not* a form of suicide? Just because the copy is exact, therefore 'good enough'?
I don't buy that for a second. And I still won't step on the transporter.
Max
I use encryption when I don't want other people to read my email. My mail isn't anyone's business, whether it goes via the post or over the net. In fact, I have a right to privacy:
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to include snailmail and phone conversations. I see no reason why email should be different, yet because my government seems to hold a different view I use encryption.
To insinuate that a private citizen other than a 12-year-old girl would have no use for encryption unless they were a terrorist or a criminal is just plain stupid, not to mention irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the content of my letters is boring and trivial, I still have a right to privacy.
Max
How long would such a robot last? I flail in the general direction of my alarm clock until I hit the snooze button; if the robot doesn't 'snooze' I can guarrantee you it'd be flung hard into a wall the first time it hunted me down and sounded the alarm.
Max
I think the ghoul factor had alot to do with the various networks playing the footage of the planes slamming into the WTC time and time again. But I wonder where the ghoul factor was most prevalent: among the American public, or the networks, who were probably pissing themselves silly with dreams of record ratings?
Frankly, there came a point early on during the broadcasts when I couldn't take seeing the planes crash into the towers for the umpteenth time. Every time I saw that my stomache rolled and eventually I thought "dear christ, hasn't everyone seen that by now? Would you stop interspersing those fucking videos with the commentary before I puke? Shithead vampire assholes...."
The primary reason I turned to net-based news was because the networks seemsed *almost gleeful* in their desire to play those goddamned tapes over and over again, superimposed on whatever broadcast was currently taking place. Funny, I didn't get a vicarious thrill out of seeing what might have been at the time up to 50,000 people die, on TV. I wonder if perhaps a good many other Americans felt the same way, and turned to the net for their news to avoid losing their lunch.
But then I don't slow down at car wrecks and crane my head out the window to see if I can catch a glimpse of body parts, either, so maybe I'm just a freak that way....
Max
Looks like a Linux company in the making. Two goals: a) test the kernel as well as popular apps and release reports of the results on the web, and b) take the current (often cryptic) FAQs and HOWTOs and write *understandable* books on various topics. Books which can be bought in paper form or downloaded from the aforementioned web site for a much smaller fee. Or parts of books/documentation which can be ordered via a web-based index system for just those problems that the user wishes to address.
The only weak point that I see in Linux (OS and apps) is the documentation, much of which generally sucks because it was written by someone with little skill in stringing non-code-oriented sentences together. Or because the person who was writing the documentation was actually pretty good at it, but took a great many things for granted that utterly confuse a newcomer to Linux. I think a company like this, if it did the job well, would make a tidy profit - especially with the Linux adoption rate growing as it is.
If any non-neo-nazi management-types are up to creating such a company I'd be happy to write some of the books/chapters/documents in question. Scratch an itch and make money at something I like to do at the same time.
Assuming you're willing to pay me enough to pry me away from teaching children about computers, of course. So far no job that I've had beats teaching middle school students!
Max
You missed the point. Linux is a kernel, a piece of software, and thus is entirely incapable of any sort of competition. Linux does not compete with Windows.
*People* who use Linux sometimes compete with *people* who use Windows, and vice versa. Linus and the primary developers of Linux are not among those people. They aren't beholden to those people, they aren't required to adopt the views of those people, and they most certainly aren't obligated to yield to your demands on the matter.
They don't care what you think, and there's nothing you can do to change that. And that's precisely the way it should be.
Max
THe linux kernel is by far the most buggy POS "kernel" that I have ever come across in 20 years of coding!
Then stop using it. You'll be happier and we won't have to listen to you bitch and moan. Everyone is better off.
It is not fair to make thhe public do *your* testing for you. It is *your* responsibility to do what it takes to prevent such unforgivable disasters as 2.4.1 and 2.4.11.
And this is where I have to say "blow it out your ear, loser". The people who code the Linux kernel for free aren't responsible to you or anyone else, regardless of what you may think. There is no, has never been, and will never be, a warranty with Linux.
You use the kernel at your own risk; hell, this is a standard disclaimer in all releases. If you don't like the risk use another OS.
I won't even go into how often MS has made the public do its beta testing, and they do have an implied obligation on quality (you bought it), whereas Linux does not (you get it for free, so stop whining).
What is clearly "plain and utter bullshit" is your childish bitching.
Max
You aren't "forced" to do anything in the OSS world. If you aren't happy with the way that Linux is progressing, switch to some other OS. No one's putting a gun to your head, no one's trying to lock you into a licensing scheme, and no one will give a rat's ass if you decide to ditch Linux for something else.
Or better yet, get off your ass and help with the coding. It's certainly more productive than whining about a kernel that doesn't meet your specs.
Max
Haven't you read the Halloween Documents? A core Microsoft strategy is to add extensions to open protocols, in effect 'embracing and extending'. In MS's own words, they "de-commoditize protocols" in order to render them less-than-useful on anything other than MS's own sofware.
MS did this with Java to dilute the threat that Java originally presented by promising to be truly cross-platform. It worked, and it worked well. It's no surprise they're trying to do it again.
If you have any doubt of this you can read the documents for yourself at: http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
Max
So essentially you turn cross-language spaghetti coding into something that looks like a strength?
.NET is guarranteed to provide them one, if just to maintain some part of the mess in which they have a vague understanding of what's going on.
This must be great news for all the half-assed programmers in the world who otherwise wouldn't be able to get a job. Now
Max
Not true. A third party couldn't distinguish between the two. However, *I* could - I'm only in one body, after all.
Third party verification isn't required for me to make an informed judgement as to which body I'm actually in. Opening my eyes would do the trick. And from that point I'd know if I were the original, or the copy.
This would be absolute physical verification of identity. *It doesn't matter if anyone else can do the verifying - only if you can*.
Max
Ten seconds of sustained thought over any one of these issues would cleary expose the gaping holes in the logic of legislation which limits the freedoms of citizens while doing nothing to constrain terrorism. Another ten seconds and you'll start to wonder *why* this proposed legislation exists when it would have done nothing to thwart Sept. 11, nor any future Sept. 11 that may take place.
It's about power, of course. Just another attempt by a bunch of malevolent control freaks to strip their subjects of their hard-won rights and institute something as close to a sitting dictatorship as possible. A little step here, a little step there, beat the terrorism/communism/war-on-drugs drums, play upon the fears of your people until they literally beg you to take their rights away - and for what? For an illusion of safety that can never, ever be fulfilled.
The power-hungry are coming out of the woodwork in America. It's a great time for tin-pot dictators to be alive, since they have the opportunity to capitalize upon the tragedy of Sept. 11. They don't actually *care* about 6,000 dead Americans, only how they can use the bodies - and the video footage - to amass yet more power to make others do things they don't want to do.
And really, it's getting close to their last chance to do so. After failing utterly to commercialize the internet and put a halt to a burgeoning new paradigm which redefines (in a small but growing way) how the world *might* work, if we wish it so, the only way to put the brakes on thought - and that's what we're talking about here, unapproved thinking outside of the box - is to restrict it in whatever fashion is available. If you can't conquer the internet, wrap it in laws and cover it in fear of what the government might do to you if you say the wrong thing, go to the wrong place, post the wrong comments. Make it clear that the internet has been compromised and that you *will* be bent over and fucked up the ass if you protest; kill the whole experiment before it can take off and ream the little dictators with the creation of a place they can't control, can't regulate, can't constrain.
Unregulated thought combined with unregulated communication is the absolute worst nightmare of those who yearn to control others. It's no wonder they sponsor bills aimed at bludgeoning the nascent freedoms provided by the internet to death. And it's no wonder that so many other power groups, especially entrenched commercial entities, are more than happy to line up behind the dictators and give them their full support.
Now is the time for the malicious and power-hungry to make their move. So far, it looks like they've managed to buy most of the American government.
If they win, what's next? Twenty years of martial law? Suspended elections? Will Heinlein have the last laugh after all?
Max
The aforementioned Steve Jackson Games. Look it up if you aren't familiar with the case. A classic example of a complete lack of due process.
Max
Exactly! Every candidate I've ever liked has been sabotaged long before they ever reach the finals. I've done my part and voted my conscience, but really - just look at the last presidential election. Al Gore and George Bush, two sides of the same coin, and Nader (a fanatic that I don't care for) so slandered by the press that virtually no one voted for him.
Yeah. Some choice. Rather, *no* choice.
Max
Why don't all of you MS haters combine your efforts into something constructive
We did. It's called Linux.
Max
And, as usual, only anonymous cowards with no balls or spine post these sorts of comment. Grow up, laughable little fanboy.
Max
'blatanty anti-capitalist'. Either an Ayn Rand fanboy or someone who's got theirs and fuck everyone else.
Max
A shitty OS? You mean WinBloze XP? Dude, that particular piece of crap isn't open source, and MS owns it....
Max