Bingo. I misremembered the main point of the quote though... in my version, the bills passed for individual cases were more numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt... in the original, Tacitus lumps bills for national objects in there too.
>"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
I love this quote, in its full version it is actually even more interesting. Tacitus (this is from memory) says that during the republican period of Rome, laws began to be made to advance a particular persons private interests rather than the public good, and the more corrupt the republic became, the more of those laws it made. Which is very applicable to the purchase of legislation by the media Goliaths we like so much on Slashdot.
Not to defend Jefferson and Madison as people, but their insistence on codifying the principal of religious toleration (which is what this whole kerfuffle is about) is, I think, one of the things that made America great.
America is not a free country in many respects, but one area where freedom is absolute is in religious belief, and we have Madison (especially) to thank for that. It was a huge intellectual leap, gotta love the Enlightenment!
Of course, some (like George II, who was saved from his coke-snorting and boozing by Baby Jesus apparently) would disagree.
Wish I had more time to write on the subject, maybe I'll post a followup later. Until then, I'll just say "Ecrasez l'infame!"
I can tell you that among the professional class in the Northeast United States, athiesm is widespread. Hardly anyone I know takes religion seriously. I'm sure there are regions and social strata that are more religious.
Our money says "In God We Trust" because there wasn't enough room to write "America is populated and run by a bunch of ignorant crackers who don't deserve the enlightened system of government Jefferson and Madison established for them."
Publicly traded companies are actually pretty heavily regulated in terms of their financial disclosures. The problem is the companies are conspiring with the first-line watchdogs (the auditors) to lie about their finances.
That's how Enron became one of the top ten companies in the US, when it was totally illiquid and on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's kind of an arms race, because if your competitors were doing it, you had to do it too.
>What I'm hoping is that it will take so incredibly long for MS to line up all its ducks, that by the time it's ready it will be completely irrelevant.
In a way, it's already irrelevant because we have good, vibrant open platforms now, and they're getting better and better.
But I can think of one way Microsoft's plan might become relevant: if so many people adopt the secure platforms that network effects cause open platforms to wither (because the secure platforms will be crippled so they can't interoperate with the open platforms). (That's clearly their plan. One of the Palladium articles has a Microserf saying it won't make an impact until they ship 100 million.)
But I don't think Microsoft will be able to leverage its monopoly to force widespread acceptance of secure platforms--who would want them when we can have our open platforms? They can't even get users to migrate to their current Windows versions! That's why legislation will be purchased to force adoption of the secure platforms.
What's going to happen is that there will be a fork between "open platforms' (which is what we have now: no hardware DRM, freely programmable, an open Internet) and "'secure' platforms," which will come solely from Microsoft and have hardware DRM, will run only Microsoft-approved code, will allow access to Microsoft-approved web sites, and will allow corporate and law enforcement access to your data, and will basically pin the user down like a frog in a disecting tray.
Microsoft and the media Goliaths will then purchase legislation outlawing "open platforms." If we're lucky, our existing equipment will be grandfathered, so you won't become a computer criminal overnight. But I wouldn't count on that.
It's a good thing because it will help the Ministry of Homeland Security track everyone (because remember, everyone is a potential terrorirst), and it will help corporations market to you and restrict all that scary choice we have on the internet now.
If you don't like that, you must really hate America.
I've actually tested this with an "unguessable" hotmail user name, and it hasn't gotten any spam. Not once.
Re:currency tracking hardly needs rfids
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2
No, that would be like killing someone for his credit cards. You'd get busted (or tracked, at least) as soon as you used the cash.
You know, victim withdraws cash (duly noted in the MoHS database), victim gets killed (again, duly noted), killer buys Little Debbie Snack Cakes with victim's cash... one database lookup later, killer is firmly in the custody of KMart security (who have been deputized by MoHS, of course).
Re:currency tracking hardly needs rfids
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2
I think it would not be cool if the bank kept records of the serial numbers on the currency it dispenses to me, and the merchant I give the cash to scans the serial numbers, and a record goes into a database somewhere (maybe in the Ministry of Homeland Security) that "grytpype just spent $20 buying Little Debbie Snack Cakes at KMart." That would really, really, really suck.
In addition to the other good followups that have been posted, another difference between broadcast and Internet radio is that an Internet station cannot possibly serve as many listeners as a broadcast station.
The more listeners the Internet station has, the greater its bandwidth costs -- whereas with a broadcast station, more listeners in the broadcast area do not mean higher costs. That means advertisers would be willing to buy advertising on broadcast radio, giving them an income stream that Internet radio will never have, and that can be used to pay royalties.
I do think it's absurd that a 500-listener Internet station has to pay the same per-song royalty as a broadcast station that could cover an area with millions of potential listeners.
This is just another example of the media Goliaths destroying everything they don't already control.
Nixon resigned after he was told that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him. So he was a lot closer to the edge of the cliff than Clinton, who was impeached on a party-line vote and acquitted by the Senate. The votes in the Senate weren't even close to the 2/3 supermajority needed to convict him.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. I misremembered the main point of the quote though... in my version, the bills passed for individual cases were more numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt... in the original, Tacitus lumps bills for national objects in there too.
>"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
I love this quote, in its full version it is actually even more interesting. Tacitus (this is from memory) says that during the republican period of Rome, laws began to be made to advance a particular persons private interests rather than the public good, and the more corrupt the republic became, the more of those laws it made. Which is very applicable to the purchase of legislation by the media Goliaths we like so much on Slashdot.
Not to defend Jefferson and Madison as people, but their insistence on codifying the principal of religious toleration (which is what this whole kerfuffle is about) is, I think, one of the things that made America great.
America is not a free country in many respects, but one area where freedom is absolute is in religious belief, and we have Madison (especially) to thank for that. It was a huge intellectual leap, gotta love the Enlightenment!
Of course, some (like George II, who was saved from his coke-snorting and boozing by Baby Jesus apparently) would disagree.
Wish I had more time to write on the subject, maybe I'll post a followup later. Until then, I'll just say "Ecrasez l'infame!"
I can tell you that among the professional class in the Northeast United States, athiesm is widespread. Hardly anyone I know takes religion seriously. I'm sure there are regions and social strata that are more religious.
Our money says "In God We Trust" because there wasn't enough room to write "America is populated and run by a bunch of ignorant crackers who don't deserve the enlightened system of government Jefferson and Madison established for them."
Publicly traded companies are actually pretty heavily regulated in terms of their financial disclosures. The problem is the companies are conspiring with the first-line watchdogs (the auditors) to lie about their finances.
That's how Enron became one of the top ten companies in the US, when it was totally illiquid and on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's kind of an arms race, because if your competitors were doing it, you had to do it too.
Oh, let's just string him up by his entrails. Skip the formalities and legalisms!
You should upgrade to Penis Pro 2002. Its lithium batteries last 3 hours before a recharge (1 hour in Brazil).
>What I'm hoping is that it will take so incredibly long for MS to line up all its ducks, that by the time it's ready it will be completely irrelevant.
In a way, it's already irrelevant because we have good, vibrant open platforms now, and they're getting better and better.
But I can think of one way Microsoft's plan might become relevant: if so many people adopt the secure platforms that network effects cause open platforms to wither (because the secure platforms will be crippled so they can't interoperate with the open platforms). (That's clearly their plan. One of the Palladium articles has a Microserf saying it won't make an impact until they ship 100 million.)
But I don't think Microsoft will be able to leverage its monopoly to force widespread acceptance of secure platforms--who would want them when we can have our open platforms? They can't even get users to migrate to their current Windows versions! That's why legislation will be purchased to force adoption of the secure platforms.
What's going to happen is that there will be a fork between "open platforms' (which is what we have now: no hardware DRM, freely programmable, an open Internet) and "'secure' platforms," which will come solely from Microsoft and have hardware DRM, will run only Microsoft-approved code, will allow access to Microsoft-approved web sites, and will allow corporate and law enforcement access to your data, and will basically pin the user down like a frog in a disecting tray.
Microsoft and the media Goliaths will then purchase legislation outlawing "open platforms." If we're lucky, our existing equipment will be grandfathered, so you won't become a computer criminal overnight. But I wouldn't count on that.
Of course, this is all for your own good.
It's a good thing because it will help the Ministry of Homeland Security track everyone (because remember, everyone is a potential terrorirst), and it will help corporations market to you and restrict all that scary choice we have on the internet now.
If you don't like that, you must really hate America.
Ach! Dinna price yersel out of the market! I'll give you the caber of the clan MacReekie and a set of nickel-plated bagpipes to ransom poor Nessie!
Quick, somebody register Project Odysseus at Sourceforge!
I've actually tested this with an "unguessable" hotmail user name, and it hasn't gotten any spam. Not once.
No, that would be like killing someone for his credit cards. You'd get busted (or tracked, at least) as soon as you used the cash.
You know, victim withdraws cash (duly noted in the MoHS database), victim gets killed (again, duly noted), killer buys Little Debbie Snack Cakes with victim's cash... one database lookup later, killer is firmly in the custody of KMart security (who have been deputized by MoHS, of course).
I think it would not be cool if the bank kept records of the serial numbers on the currency it dispenses to me, and the merchant I give the cash to scans the serial numbers, and a record goes into a database somewhere (maybe in the Ministry of Homeland Security) that "grytpype just spent $20 buying Little Debbie Snack Cakes at KMart." That would really, really, really suck.
So now our money will have little choo-choos on them? Goody!
It could happen! Check this out!
Thanks for the props, bwoys!
In addition to the other good followups that have been posted, another difference between broadcast and Internet radio is that an Internet station cannot possibly serve as many listeners as a broadcast station.
The more listeners the Internet station has, the greater its bandwidth costs -- whereas with a broadcast station, more listeners in the broadcast area do not mean higher costs. That means advertisers would be willing to buy advertising on broadcast radio, giving them an income stream that Internet radio will never have, and that can be used to pay royalties.
I do think it's absurd that a 500-listener Internet station has to pay the same per-song royalty as a broadcast station that could cover an area with millions of potential listeners.
This is just another example of the media Goliaths destroying everything they don't already control.
If don't understand the first goddamned thing about the subject, you shouldn't post.
Neither are "troll" or "flamebait."
In short, the spammers are advertising... to themselves!
Nixon was not impeached! Clinton was the first president to be impeached since Andrew Jackson, look it up for Glubs' sake!
Following up on my own post:
Nixon resigned after he was told that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him. So he was a lot closer to the edge of the cliff than Clinton, who was impeached on a party-line vote and acquitted by the Senate. The votes in the Senate weren't even close to the 2/3 supermajority needed to convict him.