In the the land of he free and the home of the brave.*
*some restrictions may apply.
Prosser: But the plans were on display. Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar. Prosser: That's the display department. Arthur Dent: With a torch. Prosser: The lights had probably gone. Arthur Dent: So had the stairs. Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you? Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
I've seen the writing on the wall, there's nothing desirable about the things that would come with such a technology. It's bad enough that the NSA tracks us in every other respect.
The bar for amending the federal constitution is pretty high for exactly the reason of avoiding the Alabama Constitution situation, along with the intended, extremely limited scope of the Federal Government.
The Constitution is a living document...through the Amendment process. An oft-ignored feature of the Constitution. Unfortunately, modern government officials seem to find it easier to just get the courts to rewrite the Constitution instead of adhering to the only proper and legal routes of effecting such change.
Not necessarily. Today's justices, and the justices of the past hundred years, have shown a strong tendency to reject the intent and language of the constitution as written in the language of 1787 and instead substitute the modern, highly altered definitions of the terms. The vast expansion of government authority under the commerce clause as evidenced in Wickard v. Filburn is a great example. I can think of no framer who would find that ruling consistent with the commerce clause as written in the English language of 1787.
That's far from guaranteed. You'd be surprised how miserable people who have everything can be, while some people who have nothing can often laugh at their circumstances. Never judge happiness by material possessions.
Now you're just being silly. They already do that on every other topic, regardless of whether their action has any effect, just to look like they're doing "seomthing". It's a symptom of a larger problem in government. I'd rather treat the problem of bad government than worry about your warning about a symptom of bad government.
Your opinion on this matter is contingent upon the idea that somehow, at this point, people can do something to stop the change. I don't share your view on that matter.
I'm not bothered by hypothetical extreme weather, and if food prices become ridiculous, it will be the fault of government, not car owners from 2013.
As far as the cost of relocating people close to sea level, that's their problem to deal with. In fact, in a free society, what the government is a "fan of" is really irrelevant. What matters is twofold; what the people do with their own time/resources/etc., and what the people demonstrate a desire for. Unfortunately, at least here in the US, the government and its establishments have so firmly insulated itself from the citizens that it would take far more than electing a few good candidates to fix the problems we have.
As far as Somalia-style government, I'm going to go ahead and point out that this is some rather extreme hyperbole. I tend to stick with an amended Madisonian government. You know, the one largely found in the presently amended constitution minus the 17th amendment.
if the government's idea of "secret" weren't complete and total BS. Today, "secret" simply means "stuff that would embarrass us". The only context that getting most of today's government "secrets" into the public's scrutiny would qualify as "aiding an enemy" is if they consider the American people to be their enemy. Which is, sadly, closer to the truth than it ever should be.
Slashdot Mirror
*some restrictions may apply.
Prosser: But the plans were on display.
Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
Prosser: That's the display department.
Arthur Dent: With a torch.
Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
If somebody's going to be selfish, I'd rather it be me than government officials and power-hungry elites.
Apparently you missed the part where I said I wasn't sold on the necessity of doing it at all.
I've seen the writing on the wall, there's nothing desirable about the things that would come with such a technology. It's bad enough that the NSA tracks us in every other respect.
I'm still not sold on it enough to give governments even that much authority in the matter.
A completely different analogy, and one that does not actually work
The bar for amending the federal constitution is pretty high for exactly the reason of avoiding the Alabama Constitution situation, along with the intended, extremely limited scope of the Federal Government.
I'm not sure you understand that for hiroshima/nagasaki, while the bomb is exploding, that's pretty much irrelevant.
and it's not going to help Manning.
Along with Stephenson's. Every time I read about Bitcoin, I end up thinking about a datacenter in Kinakuta...
The Constitution is a living document...through the Amendment process. An oft-ignored feature of the Constitution. Unfortunately, modern government officials seem to find it easier to just get the courts to rewrite the Constitution instead of adhering to the only proper and legal routes of effecting such change.
Not necessarily. Today's justices, and the justices of the past hundred years, have shown a strong tendency to reject the intent and language of the constitution as written in the language of 1787 and instead substitute the modern, highly altered definitions of the terms. The vast expansion of government authority under the commerce clause as evidenced in Wickard v. Filburn is a great example. I can think of no framer who would find that ruling consistent with the commerce clause as written in the English language of 1787.
That's far from guaranteed. You'd be surprised how miserable people who have everything can be, while some people who have nothing can often laugh at their circumstances. Never judge happiness by material possessions.
Not just storing. You can be assured they won't leave it to simply that.
That's not a logical argument. It's very much like saying, mid explosion, that we built Fat Man and Little Boy, so surely we can stop the explosion.
And that's assuming we actually did create the change, as opposed to possibly influencing its pace.
Now you're just being silly. They already do that on every other topic, regardless of whether their action has any effect, just to look like they're doing "seomthing". It's a symptom of a larger problem in government. I'd rather treat the problem of bad government than worry about your warning about a symptom of bad government.
Your opinion on this matter is contingent upon the idea that somehow, at this point, people can do something to stop the change. I don't share your view on that matter.
I'm not bothered by hypothetical extreme weather, and if food prices become ridiculous, it will be the fault of government, not car owners from 2013.
As far as the cost of relocating people close to sea level, that's their problem to deal with. In fact, in a free society, what the government is a "fan of" is really irrelevant. What matters is twofold; what the people do with their own time/resources/etc., and what the people demonstrate a desire for. Unfortunately, at least here in the US, the government and its establishments have so firmly insulated itself from the citizens that it would take far more than electing a few good candidates to fix the problems we have.
As far as Somalia-style government, I'm going to go ahead and point out that this is some rather extreme hyperbole. I tend to stick with an amended Madisonian government. You know, the one largely found in the presently amended constitution minus the 17th amendment.
Sure, have it your way. Arguing with an unreasonable AC is pointless.
I did read it, I was simply pointing out that such a letter had been issued. A case need not have merit to be a giant hassle for those involved.
In this case it's actually both.
You're quite right of course. I wish I could argue otherwise.
This is where SLAPP laws come into play.
Unfortunately, the host seems as smart as the lawyer, considering they're threatening to shut down the server according to the synopsis.
if the government's idea of "secret" weren't complete and total BS. Today, "secret" simply means "stuff that would embarrass us". The only context that getting most of today's government "secrets" into the public's scrutiny would qualify as "aiding an enemy" is if they consider the American people to be their enemy. Which is, sadly, closer to the truth than it ever should be.