The constitution does not preclude the Blah blah You missed the phrase "in a rational world". Besides, the constitution specifies only regulation of interstate commerce. Are you reading from an abridged version, perhaps?
I want the government to protect my right to clean air, my right to a walk down streets where people are not carrying deadly weapons, my right to cross the street without fear of being run over by a car
You are clearly confused about what the bill of rights in the constitution was about. Or perhaps you are talking about some other set of rights that I'm not aware of. The whole basis for the declaration of independence from england was the doctrine of natural rights which grew from the medieval doctrines of natural law. The founders were greatly influenced by these ideas as well as the idea of a social contract as described by Rousseau. Only in recent history did some more collectivist ideas take hold and led people to think of the government as a great equalizer. If you really want to understand the constitution, the writings of Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson are particularly enlightening, as are the federalist papers, but those only help with the unamended constitution.
You may eventually understand the spirit of the constitution, and come to understand why your "rights" are not included in it, but still desire your "rights" to be guaranteed. That's your perogative, however, if you want to live in a country where such things are provided for and _guaranteed_, no where will you find such a place. It can not exist.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right not to be shot in the head by your next-door neighbor in his free time, either.
No, I don't consider this a right, either. Nothing should infringe your right to protect your life, family and property from such an intrusion. But what you saying is the government must take steps to make sure that this particular infraction does not occur. No thanks, I don't want a police state and tv monitors on every mailbox to keep it from happening.
My point is, the fact that this smoking ordinance exists is completely separate from and by no means follows from the rights guaranteed by the constitution and its ammendments. In fact, in a rational world, it would be found unconstitutional as it restricts the freedom of the restaurant owners to operate their business in a way that does not infringe on anyone else's rights.
That being said, I love the law because I think smoking is disgusting. But I still think it is completely wrong and another example of the liberty smothering nanny state.
I've said it a thousand times: If you don't want a government, go live somewhere where there isn't one, and stop taking advantage of the benefits provided by the one we have. You can't have it both ways.
I'd gladly trade less regulation, less military, less social programs, less government == less TAX for less safety and more responsibility.
Would you trade your remaining freedoms for a completely government controlled life?
I despise smoking. But nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to clean air! The bill of rights enumerates what the government CAN NOT do to you as an individual. Having a right to a THING would be against that spirit.
On the other hand, it IS possible to devise an application programming language that rivals C++ and C in efficiency without much of the cruft. Check out Sather, whose semantics and efficiency are pretty good, but whose syntax leaves something to be desired (if only they would lose the pascally syntax...).
Microsoft keeps microsoft's competitors at bay. GPL wasn't on the radar when MS gained it's market share.
You seem stuck in the idea that a single company has to "rise to compete" with microsoft. Nobody wants another microsoft. I'd prefer a 1000 companies in a competitive marketplace making money on vertical apps & services -- sharing the common infrastructure via GPL.
I'd say the guiding principle should be to enforce individual rights. In that glaring light, what right of musicians and artists are violated by allowing individuals to copy their recorded works?
Are they physically harmed - no.
Is property being taken - no.
Are they being forced or misled into doing something they normally would not? - no
Can they no longer persue happiness - no.
There is no right to become rich, thankfully, only the right to persue it, if you think it would make you happy. The idea of becoming rich by selling reproductions to masses of people is a relative recent one provided by technology, and may be historically an aberation, due to technology.
I would personally appreciate the J. Lo Hummer act, but unfortunately would violate several of Ms. Lopez's rights.
If the "American Way" is about freedom, then open source qualifies. No one is twisting anyone's arm to write this code. No one is twisting anyone's arm to use it.
Look, if anyone compares open source to collectivism, remind them that the bad part about socialism and communism isn't the sharing, it's the part about being forced to share.
Why? It's the same stuff, with the same utility. I think humans will adapt to their non-physical stuff, just as they had to adapt to the high speed of motorized vehicles.
- books from project gutenburg - free books, maybe from here or here - technical books like this one and other technical documents.
- articles from Nupedia - university research papers, a lot of which are on-line now.
- mirrors of websites
All free, no fees. A prediction: a readable ebook will drive publishing toward free books just as linux is driving software companies to open source. It will never be a complete transformation in either case, but it will shake things up for sure.
- New display technologies will read like paper.
- a reader full of ebooks is lighter, smaller, easier to search, and more portable than a stack of books.
I'm sure that's true, there are people who collect old stuff just 'cause they like old stuff. Me, I can't wait until I can carry around my whole library in my pocket, transmit a book to a friend, and say "Hey, I think you will enjoy this".
Wealth is created by producing value, independent of how much work it took to create that value. Produce a lot of value to a few people (trial lawyers, surgeons) or a little value to lots of people (entertainers), and you produce wealth. I think the mistake you are making is thinking that a unit of economic value is equivalent to some fixed unit of physical work. No such correlation exists, at least in a free market economy. In fact, I have yet to find anything at all that has intrinsic economic value, it all depends on someone wanting it.
I submit that the number of well paid contract programmers is about equal to the number of able people that can put up with the stress, uncertainty, and flavor of work involved, and the only manipulation going on is invented in your mind.
It appears you are saying that the supply of idle time is a zero sum and a rich person's gain of idle time is extracted from many worker's idle time.
If so, this is the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and am at a loss as to how you could possibly be serious. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you are a very good troll.
Ideas and value, the non-physical stuff of social systems, do not obey the laws of thermodynamics. The only closed system that biological systems exist in is the universe. There's lots of time to play some non-zero sum games within that big zero-sum system.
The amount of wealth in the world is not static, and expands whenever something new is created out of parts of an agregate lesser value.
"In simple terms: For each "rich" person there must exist a small army of "poor" people. "
Must exist? Do they just appear out of thin air? If enough idle rich exist, the demand for idle rich services increase, non-idle incomes increase. It's a dynamic system.
So true. But when you're finished playing, the game puts YOU away.
I think it is well accepted that biological life is a nonzero game. The theory that social systems are nonzero is less well accepted. Not that I would argue against it. An interesting recent book on these topics was Nonzero: the logic of human destiny
Well some people actually buy the boxed distributions to get some of the extra goodies (commercial bundlings) or to get a manual.
How many companies selling the same thing can exist in a given market anyway? Redhat got a big chunk of US market by being early and decent. Mandrake is doing well because it's quality is/was perceived to be better.
This is just consolidation and retrenching. Nothing bad about it, it's quite normal.
"It is an unequivocal fact that the Earth is heating up due to global warming"
Some other astounding unequivocal facts:
- People who are paid more make more money.
- There's pollutents in the air because of polluting.
and last but not least,
- Most people vote for who is going to win.
(OK not always)
Are you sure it is a metaphor? A phrase like "drowning in money" or an icon with a gear denoting work being done -- these are metaphors.
I know it's been referred to for years in that manner, but I never understood why except that "graphic computing analogy" doesn't sound as cool.
Slashdot Mirror
The constitution does not preclude the Blah blah
You missed the phrase "in a rational world". Besides, the constitution specifies only regulation of interstate commerce. Are you reading from an abridged version, perhaps?
I want the government to protect my right to clean air, my right to a walk down streets where people are not carrying deadly weapons, my right to cross the street without fear of being run over by a car
You are clearly confused about what the bill of rights in the constitution was about. Or perhaps you are talking about some other set of rights that I'm not aware of. The whole basis for the declaration of independence from england was the doctrine of natural rights which grew from the medieval doctrines of natural law. The founders were greatly influenced by these ideas as well as the idea of a social contract as described by Rousseau. Only in recent history did some more collectivist ideas take hold and led people to think of the government as a great equalizer. If you really want to understand the constitution, the writings of Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson are particularly enlightening, as are the federalist papers, but those only help with the unamended constitution.
You may eventually understand the spirit of the constitution, and come to understand why your "rights" are not included in it, but still desire your "rights" to be guaranteed. That's your perogative, however, if you want to live in a country where such things are provided for and _guaranteed_, no where will you find such a place. It can not exist.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right not to be shot in the head by your next-door neighbor in his free time, either.
No, I don't consider this a right, either. Nothing should infringe your right to protect your life, family and property from such an intrusion. But what you saying is the government must take steps to make sure that this particular infraction does not occur. No thanks, I don't want a police state and tv monitors on every mailbox to keep it from happening.
My point is, the fact that this smoking ordinance exists is completely separate from and by no means follows from the rights guaranteed by the constitution and its ammendments. In fact, in a rational world, it would be found unconstitutional as it restricts the freedom of the restaurant owners to operate their business in a way that does not infringe on anyone else's rights.
That being said, I love the law because I think smoking is disgusting. But I still think it is completely wrong and another example of the liberty smothering nanny state.
I've said it a thousand times: If you don't want a government, go live somewhere where there isn't one, and stop taking advantage of the benefits provided by the one we have. You can't have it both ways.
I'd gladly trade less regulation, less military, less social programs, less government == less TAX for less safety and more responsibility.
Would you trade your remaining freedoms for a completely government controlled life?
I despise smoking. But nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to clean air! The bill of rights enumerates what the government CAN NOT do to you as an individual. Having a right to a THING would be against that spirit.
On the other hand, it IS possible to devise an application programming language that rivals C++ and C in efficiency without much of the cruft. Check out Sather, whose semantics and efficiency are pretty good, but whose syntax leaves something to be desired (if only they would lose the pascally syntax...).
Microsoft keeps microsoft's competitors at bay. GPL wasn't on the radar when MS gained it's market share.
You seem stuck in the idea that a single company has to "rise to compete" with microsoft. Nobody wants another microsoft. I'd prefer a 1000 companies in a competitive marketplace making money on vertical apps & services -- sharing the common infrastructure via GPL.
True enough, except for the part about pure capitalism having failed. I don't believe that this particular experiment has ever been attempted.
I'd say the guiding principle should be to enforce individual rights. In that glaring light, what right of musicians and artists are violated by allowing individuals to copy their recorded works?
Are they physically harmed - no.
Is property being taken - no.
Are they being forced or misled into doing something they normally would not? - no
Can they no longer persue happiness - no.
There is no right to become rich, thankfully, only the right to persue it, if you think it would make you happy. The idea of becoming rich by selling reproductions to masses of people is a relative recent one provided by technology, and may be historically an aberation, due to technology.
I would personally appreciate the J. Lo Hummer act, but unfortunately would violate several of Ms. Lopez's rights.
Yeah, yeah. Just wait until your elves form a union.
Yep.
If the "American Way" is about freedom, then open source qualifies. No one is twisting anyone's arm to write this code. No one is twisting anyone's arm to use it.
Look, if anyone compares open source to collectivism, remind them that the bad part about socialism and communism isn't the sharing, it's the part about being forced to share.
I can't decide which I like best -- the D's or
the V between them.
Why? It's the same stuff, with the same utility. I think humans will adapt to their non-physical stuff, just as they had to adapt to the high speed of motorized vehicles.
Well, my library could consist of:
- books from project gutenburg
- free books, maybe from here or here
- technical books like this one and other technical documents.
- articles from Nupedia
- university research papers, a lot of which are on-line now.
- mirrors of websites
All free, no fees. A prediction: a readable ebook will drive publishing toward free books just as linux is driving software companies to open source. It will never be a complete transformation in either case, but it will shake things up for sure.
Sounds good, except:
- New display technologies will read like paper.
- a reader full of ebooks is lighter, smaller, easier to search, and more portable than a stack of books.
I'm sure that's true, there are people who collect old stuff just 'cause they like old stuff. Me, I can't wait until I can carry around my whole library in my pocket, transmit a book to a friend, and say "Hey, I think you will enjoy this".
Ummm, a book, last time I checked, is an instance of technology, not "genuine human communication".
Wealth is created by producing value, independent of how much work it took to create that value. Produce a lot of value to a few people (trial lawyers, surgeons) or a little value to lots of people (entertainers), and you produce wealth. I think the mistake you are making is thinking that a unit of economic value is equivalent to some fixed unit of physical work. No such correlation exists, at least in a free market economy. In fact, I have yet to find anything at all that has intrinsic economic value, it all depends on someone wanting it.
I submit that the number of well paid contract programmers is about equal to the number of able people that can put up with the stress, uncertainty, and flavor of work involved, and the only manipulation going on is invented in your mind.
It appears you are saying that the supply of idle time is a zero sum and a rich person's gain of idle time is extracted from many worker's idle time.
If so, this is the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and am at a loss as to how you could possibly be serious. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you are a very good troll.
Congratualations, you got me.
Ideas and value, the non-physical stuff of social systems, do not obey the laws of thermodynamics. The only closed system that biological systems exist in is the universe. There's lots of time to play some non-zero sum games within that big zero-sum system.
No, no it is not.
The amount of wealth in the world is not static, and expands whenever something new is created out of parts of an agregate lesser value.
"In simple terms: For each "rich" person there must exist a small army of "poor" people. "
Must exist? Do they just appear out of thin air? If enough idle rich exist, the demand for idle rich services increase, non-idle incomes increase. It's a dynamic system.
So true. But when you're finished playing, the game puts YOU away.
I think it is well accepted that biological life is a nonzero game. The theory that social systems are nonzero is less well accepted. Not that I would argue against it. An interesting recent book on these topics was Nonzero: the logic of human destiny
Well some people actually buy the boxed distributions to get some of the extra goodies (commercial bundlings) or to get a manual.
How many companies selling the same thing can exist in a given market anyway? Redhat got a big chunk of US market by being early and decent. Mandrake is doing well because it's quality is/was perceived to be better.
This is just consolidation and retrenching. Nothing bad about it, it's quite normal.
"It is an unequivocal fact that the Earth is heating up due to global warming"
Some other astounding unequivocal facts:
- People who are paid more make more money.
- There's pollutents in the air because of polluting.
and last but not least,
- Most people vote for who is going to win.
(OK not always)
Damn!--You're the one! Get your ass over to the slow lane and stop holding everyone up!
Are you sure it is a metaphor? A phrase like "drowning in money" or an icon with a gear denoting work being done -- these are metaphors.
I know it's been referred to for years in that manner, but I never understood why except that "graphic computing analogy" doesn't sound as cool.
phat eclectic nubile girls under incredible nylon
or if money is tight...
plump eskimo native girls undulating in nylon