If the revolution were the "traditional" revolution, those involved would BE terrorists.
No revolution has any chance of success without a substantial popular support. Not a majority, mind, since the majority will always choose apathy, but at least a significant minority of the minority that cares.
If I were guessing, I'd say you need at least 10% of the general populace behind you. Which gives you upwards of 25,000,000 rebels. And if you can't win against the "loyalist" faction of the military with 25,000,000 shooters, you don't deserve to win.
Filing a one-page financial statement is not a barrier to the free speech you just spent a thousand bucks on
It isn't? Hmm, if you spent $999 you don't need to register, one dollar more, you do. So you need to keep accurate records of your expenditures if you are at all marginal. Including labour costs (your own, if no other).
The requirement that you keep detailed records of expenditures (if only to prove that you did NOT violate the law) will have a chilling effect on political speech. A chilling effect is a barrier to free speech, at least according to the Supremes....
trying to go head to head with the police and military would be suicide.
Umm, no. You are assuming that all (or even most) of the polive and military would be on the other side. It's as likely that the majority of the military and police would be in the rebellious faction as not.
It's not just an imperfect analogy, it's false and a straw man argument. There are plenty of liberals (like myself) who do support a woman's right to defend herself with a weapon. Where we differ from, say, the NRA, is in drawing the line at what weapons are reasonable to allow. The NRA thinks everyone should be allowed to carry fully automatic military assault rifles. I think military weapons should be restricted to the military -- for civilian self-defense, handguns are sufficient.
Umm, no. The NRA has not complained about the restrictions on ownership of fully automatic weapons in my lifetime.
It HAS complained about the restrictions on SALES of "assault weapons" (which are neither fully automatic nor military). Note that the "assault weapons" ban did NOT ban fully automatic weapons, or even restrict them. It only restricted the sales (not ownership) of semi-automatic look-alikes.
At home, I have three semi-automatic rifles, each firing the same cartridge. One of them was legally an "assault weapon". One was not mentioned at all in the Ban. The third was on the list of "exempt" weapons that were specified in the Ban as "NOT an assault weapon".
I bought all of those rifles because it amused me to own proof of the contradictions and essential idiocy of the "assault weapon ban". I didn't bother to buy a fully automatic weapon, not because such were illegal (they're not, and never have been), but because they cost more than I wanted to spend on a gun I had no use for.
Note further that, in spite of your belief that military weapons should be restricted to the military, the Second Amendment doesn't so restrict ownership of firearms. The Militia Act (written by the same Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights) specifically required every member of the militia (which was defined as every white male from 18-45, excluding government agents) to own a military weapon (the flintlock musket, at that time, was a purely military weapon - most civilian weapons of the day were too frail to meet military standards).
Finally, I am surprised to hear about a "liberal" that supports the right to own handguns. Handguns are the most regulated type of firearms in the USA, largely as a result of the Gun Control loons on the left who have been pushing for the banning of all firearms.
As far as the "liberal controlling agenda", I should note that a lot of the web sites I look at talk in equally heated tones about the "conservative controlling agenda". I strongly suspect that each side is no longer actually looking at the other side at all -- they are now both responding to their own internalized caricature of what they think the other side is and wants
No, they're responding to their own propoganda - it's not that they think the other side wants this, it's that they hope they can convince YOU that that's what the other side wants.
Under these conditions, no constructive discussion is possible
No argument there.
I suggest that everyone take a deep breath, count to ten, and remember that just about everyone is at heart a decent human being who is trying to improve his society. Once that is remembered, some common ground can be established and we might get somewhere.
Unlikely. Too many fundamental differences these days. Specifically, fundamental differences in the definition of "people" - the "right" has a more expansie definition of "people" than the "left" (for possibly the first time in history, I might add), and that particular issue won't be resolved trivially. If we're lucky, it might go as smoothly as the Civil Rights movement (which took decades to settle). If not, the Civil War is a good analogy (which only took a few years, but I know which one I'd prefer).
Yes, we all want to improve society. The problem is that for the most part, the things *I* think would be improvements would be considered absolute nightmares by most of the "left" (and a good portion of the "right"). And vice versa. I doubt seriously that you and I would disagree terribly much. But then I doubt most "liberals" would take kindly to you calling yourself one, either....
After all, they're the ones out there holding up gun stores to steal guns
That's funny. Someone tried to hold up a gun store again? Last time that happened down here, the people behind the counter (who were all wearing pistols openly) and the customers (who were mostly wearing their pistols concealed) proceeded to show the "robber" the errors of his ways.
One has to wonder why anyone would rob a gunstore to get a gun, though. Generally, it's much easier just to take your credit card out and buy the gun. And if you're too poor to buy a gun, where'd you get the one you used to rob the gun store? And if you didn't have one when you went to rob the gun store, whatever gave you the idea you had a chance in hell of succeeding in your robbery attempt?
If I remember my history books correctly, the only people that were allowed to vote were property owners
You don't remember correctly. In general, the rule was that you had to be a white male to vote.
It is certainly true that there were arguments in favour of requiring voters to own property (and some States may have so restricted their voters), but, in general, that idea didn't receive much favour. Quoth Ben Franklin:
"I own an ass - I can vote. The ass dies - I cannot vote. Therefore, the franchise resides not in me, but in the ass."
the Russians, whose Soyuz system is "decades behind ours", and have had almost 2,000 successful launches with it
The Soyuz booster has had more than 1600 launches. With a 97.5% success rate. Note that not all (or even most) of these launches were manned. There were 89 manned Soyuz launches, of which two failed (well, more than two failed, but only two resulted in loss of crews. 97.7% success rate)
The SST has done 113 flights, with a 98.2% success rate.
The problem bicyclists (and many motorcyclists) have is with people in their automobiles who fail to properly look out and are too busy talking on the damned cell phone while driving their gas sucking SUVs.
Hate to say this, the problem is older than cellphones and SUV's. Only serious bicycle accident I had as a kid involved (what was then) a compact car in the 70's.
As far as I could tell at the time, the people in the car were making out. At least, I didn't see the woman till after the accident - just the (distraced) driver.
Daimaou holds the license to the changes he made, however, unless he explicitly transferred ownership of his changes back to the original license holder.
Say, rather, that he owns the Copyright to the changes he made, unless he explicitly transferred owership of his changes back to the original Copyright holder.
It's not that simple. There is a certain amount of work require to hold a copyright.
Indeed? Funny, Title 17 (the Copyright Act) doesn't mention a lower limit on copyrightability (no, it's not a word. I hope) of a given bit of text. The single line of your's that I quoted was Copyrighted, under US Law (back in the 50's, it would not have been, but things have changed), by you. I use it here under "Fair Use" (which is specified in Title 17, so don't believe people who say that Fair Use is not a matter of law).
Note that "changing a single line of code" may be more properly considered a "derivative work", which gives you Copyright only over the changed lines, not the original work it is based on.
Note further that the difference between a "derivative work" and a "joint work" leaves a certain amount of room for interpretation. Especially since a work can be both. Linux likely qualifies as both. Most of the time.
Insofar as Linux is concerned, any given version is a derivative work of the previous version(s) (as applicable), and a joint work of all the contributors of that particular version.
Which would give all contributors to a given version Copyright of (a) their individual contributions, and (b) partial ownership of the collective Copyright for the version.
You aren't torturing someone if you offer them a certain food, offer to have sex with them, play some rock music at loud volume when they're trying to sleep, or offer to smear them in with an UBS (it may still be rude).
Oh? So if I offer a Muslim pork chops, and ONLY pork chops, for EVERY meal, I'm not torturing him? I disagree. The hypothetical victim's religious beliefs obviously matter more to me than they do to you.
However, if you do it or make them do it, against their explicit wishes, it's pretty bad. If you do this deliberately to cause them anguish, then it's torture, and in case you've missed it, this is what US personnel have been doing.
Well, it's certainly been alleged that they did this. In a few cases, it's been proved (those guys are now in Leavenworth).
I tend to believe that "torture" is not so much a matter of intent as it is a matter of effect - even if I feel I'm being wonderfully generous, that hypothetical Muslim isn't going to be feeling all warm and fuzzy about the bacon on his plate.
I take the view that, in cases where a rule or law is passed that purposely seeks to supress information on how it is used, it is prudent to at least keep the worst in mind as a real possibility. Else, why would they have insisted on the secrecy? (And don't gimmie that business about national security, you rascal!)
That's the big difference between us. I take the view that where a rule or law is passed, it is prident to keep the worst in mind. Note that I don't put qualifiers like "purposely seeks to suppress information" in my rule. ANY Law can and WILL be abused, sooner or later.
When it comes to GPL'd software, who IS the copyright holder?
Sure, one person starts the code. But when other people submit patches, improvements, branch the code, etc, etc. . . are they ALL copyright holders?
In a word, yes. See Title 17:
(a) Initial Ownership.-- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
No, a Devil's Advocate is not a Troll. But I have seen posts that I considered to be those of a Devil's Advocate labelled "Troll", so obviously the distinction is not so clear as you seem to think.
I take it you missed my point entirely. There are MORE ways to torture someone than you might think. Not fewer, more. As in, something YOU don't think is torture might very well be seen as torture by someone else.
And by the same token, some things that are torture to you aren't torture to me. And vice versa. It is important to understand that I can, with the best of intentions, torture someone - if I serve someone EXACTLY THE SAME FOOD THAT I EAT, I can be torturing a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a PETA member.
The pepperoni pizza isn't torture to me (well, after a few days, that last slice looks like torture), but would be tantamount to forced starvation if it was the only food served to a Muslim. Or a Hindi, in the beef pepperoni variant that they serve in Muslim countries. Is starving someone torture? Yah, I think so. Is it OBVIOUS that doing such to a random person is torture? Not necessarily.
I have a Jewish Uncle. He observes the Jewish Dietary Laws. Sometimes. Would the pepperoni pizza be torture to him? I would expect not, but I've never asked him. Would it be torture to HIS father? No idea, I've never asked him whether his father observes those Dietary Laws.
Is it torture to serve bacon and eggs for breakfast? I don't think so, but I'm willing to bet a Muslim would disagree, especially if that was the only food provided.
Is it torture to serve a pizza made with beef-pepperoni? Having eaten one in Kuwait many years ago, I have to say no. A Hindu might disagree. A pepperoni purist might disagree as well.
Is it torture to provide a person with a single bar of soap to wash himself? For me, no. For my wife, quite possibly - she has extremely sensitive skin and can't use the same brand of soap for more than a few days straight without an allergic reaction, so she changes soaps often.
Is it torture to not tell someone where he is being held? Again, a Muslim might find it so - can't face Mecca to pray if you don't know where you are.
Note that there are some things which are clearly torture (ripping someone's fingers off should qualify), and some things which are clearly not (giving someone $1 billion should qualify, though I know a guy who would be tortured by such a gift), and some things are not clearly the one or the other (Three Stooges - funny to most men, torture for most women)....
Quite right. As long as the First Amendment is preserved, why worry about spirit of the Fifth or Sixth Amendments? I'm sure that any detained individuals will be pleased to know that the rest of us are free to protest outside their cells--assuming we're told where they're being held. Hm.
If you're that worried about the government's behaviour, perhaps you ought to consider the Second Amendment. Rather more useful if the government becomes tyrannical than the Fourth or Fifth.
I know for a fact non-heavy mobile users get the short end of the stick in the US. I went from spending 10 a month in a prepaid mobile in Spain to spending $35 a month in the cheapest cell plan available for 10 times as much time as I need in calls.
Odd, I'm paying less than $35 each for the three phones I currently pay for. Of course, I seldom use the minutes I pay for, but the long distance calls to the wife would cost me WAY more than $35 per month, if I were doing it the old-fashioned way.
Or did you mean to suggest that Europeans get thier cellphones for free?
80% of 455 million have cellphones in Europe. 364 million subscribers.
60% of 295 million have cellphones in the USA. 177 million subscribers.
So Europe has twice the subscribers and makes 37% more money...
I'll have to call my wife's cell and discuss the ramifications of this for an hour or two (for free, mind you, since our cell plan doesn't charge for that)...
The upper tax bracket has the means to lobby a straight tax line, but they willingly give up a greater share to Uncle Sam as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class.
This almost made me laugh hysterically. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the upper tax brackets "willingly give up a greater share" "as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class"?!
If so, I have some great beachfront property to sell you in South Dakota....
Slashdot Mirror
No revolution has any chance of success without a substantial popular support. Not a majority, mind, since the majority will always choose apathy, but at least a significant minority of the minority that cares.
If I were guessing, I'd say you need at least 10% of the general populace behind you. Which gives you upwards of 25,000,000 rebels. And if you can't win against the "loyalist" faction of the military with 25,000,000 shooters, you don't deserve to win.
It isn't? Hmm, if you spent $999 you don't need to register, one dollar more, you do. So you need to keep accurate records of your expenditures if you are at all marginal. Including labour costs (your own, if no other).
The requirement that you keep detailed records of expenditures (if only to prove that you did NOT violate the law) will have a chilling effect on political speech. A chilling effect is a barrier to free speech, at least according to the Supremes....
Umm, no. You are assuming that all (or even most) of the polive and military would be on the other side. It's as likely that the majority of the military and police would be in the rebellious faction as not.
Umm, no. The NRA has not complained about the restrictions on ownership of fully automatic weapons in my lifetime.
It HAS complained about the restrictions on SALES of "assault weapons" (which are neither fully automatic nor military). Note that the "assault weapons" ban did NOT ban fully automatic weapons, or even restrict them. It only restricted the sales (not ownership) of semi-automatic look-alikes.
At home, I have three semi-automatic rifles, each firing the same cartridge. One of them was legally an "assault weapon". One was not mentioned at all in the Ban. The third was on the list of "exempt" weapons that were specified in the Ban as "NOT an assault weapon".
I bought all of those rifles because it amused me to own proof of the contradictions and essential idiocy of the "assault weapon ban". I didn't bother to buy a fully automatic weapon, not because such were illegal (they're not, and never have been), but because they cost more than I wanted to spend on a gun I had no use for.
Note further that, in spite of your belief that military weapons should be restricted to the military, the Second Amendment doesn't so restrict ownership of firearms. The Militia Act (written by the same Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights) specifically required every member of the militia (which was defined as every white male from 18-45, excluding government agents) to own a military weapon (the flintlock musket, at that time, was a purely military weapon - most civilian weapons of the day were too frail to meet military standards).
Finally, I am surprised to hear about a "liberal" that supports the right to own handguns. Handguns are the most regulated type of firearms in the USA, largely as a result of the Gun Control loons on the left who have been pushing for the banning of all firearms.
As far as the "liberal controlling agenda", I should note that a lot of the web sites I look at talk in equally heated tones about the "conservative controlling agenda". I strongly suspect that each side is no longer actually looking at the other side at all -- they are now both responding to their own internalized caricature of what they think the other side is and wants
No, they're responding to their own propoganda - it's not that they think the other side wants this, it's that they hope they can convince YOU that that's what the other side wants.
Under these conditions, no constructive discussion is possible
No argument there.
I suggest that everyone take a deep breath, count to ten, and remember that just about everyone is at heart a decent human being who is trying to improve his society. Once that is remembered, some common ground can be established and we might get somewhere.
Unlikely. Too many fundamental differences these days. Specifically, fundamental differences in the definition of "people" - the "right" has a more expansie definition of "people" than the "left" (for possibly the first time in history, I might add), and that particular issue won't be resolved trivially. If we're lucky, it might go as smoothly as the Civil Rights movement (which took decades to settle). If not, the Civil War is a good analogy (which only took a few years, but I know which one I'd prefer).
Yes, we all want to improve society. The problem is that for the most part, the things *I* think would be improvements would be considered absolute nightmares by most of the "left" (and a good portion of the "right"). And vice versa. I doubt seriously that you and I would disagree terribly much. But then I doubt most "liberals" would take kindly to you calling yourself one, either....
That's funny. Someone tried to hold up a gun store again? Last time that happened down here, the people behind the counter (who were all wearing pistols openly) and the customers (who were mostly wearing their pistols concealed) proceeded to show the "robber" the errors of his ways.
One has to wonder why anyone would rob a gunstore to get a gun, though. Generally, it's much easier just to take your credit card out and buy the gun. And if you're too poor to buy a gun, where'd you get the one you used to rob the gun store? And if you didn't have one when you went to rob the gun store, whatever gave you the idea you had a chance in hell of succeeding in your robbery attempt?
I Once read that the measure of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you.
The more I see of the world, the more I am forced to agree with that.
You don't remember correctly. In general, the rule was that you had to be a white male to vote. It is certainly true that there were arguments in favour of requiring voters to own property (and some States may have so restricted their voters), but, in general, that idea didn't receive much favour. Quoth Ben Franklin:
"I own an ass - I can vote. The ass dies - I cannot vote. Therefore, the franchise resides not in me, but in the ass."
The Soyuz booster has had more than 1600 launches. With a 97.5% success rate. Note that not all (or even most) of these launches were manned. There were 89 manned Soyuz launches, of which two failed (well, more than two failed, but only two resulted in loss of crews. 97.7% success rate)
The SST has done 113 flights, with a 98.2% success rate.
Hate to say this, the problem is older than cellphones and SUV's. Only serious bicycle accident I had as a kid involved (what was then) a compact car in the 70's.
As far as I could tell at the time, the people in the car were making out. At least, I didn't see the woman till after the accident - just the (distraced) driver.
More correctly:
1913 opiates banned, in the USA
1914 WWI starts, IN Europe
1931 WWII starts, in Asia
1937 marijuana banned, in the USA
1939 WWII starts, in Europe
Say, rather, that he owns the Copyright to the changes he made, unless he explicitly transferred owership of his changes back to the original Copyright holder.
Indeed? Funny, Title 17 (the Copyright Act) doesn't mention a lower limit on copyrightability (no, it's not a word. I hope) of a given bit of text. The single line of your's that I quoted was Copyrighted, under US Law (back in the 50's, it would not have been, but things have changed), by you. I use it here under "Fair Use" (which is specified in Title 17, so don't believe people who say that Fair Use is not a matter of law).
Note that "changing a single line of code" may be more properly considered a "derivative work", which gives you Copyright only over the changed lines, not the original work it is based on.
Note further that the difference between a "derivative work" and a "joint work" leaves a certain amount of room for interpretation. Especially since a work can be both. Linux likely qualifies as both. Most of the time.
Insofar as Linux is concerned, any given version is a derivative work of the previous version(s) (as applicable), and a joint work of all the contributors of that particular version.
Which would give all contributors to a given version Copyright of (a) their individual contributions, and (b) partial ownership of the collective Copyright for the version.
You aren't torturing someone if you offer them a certain food, offer to have sex with them, play some rock music at loud volume when they're trying to sleep, or offer to smear them in with an UBS (it may still be rude).
Oh? So if I offer a Muslim pork chops, and ONLY pork chops, for EVERY meal, I'm not torturing him? I disagree. The hypothetical victim's religious beliefs obviously matter more to me than they do to you.
However, if you do it or make them do it, against their explicit wishes, it's pretty bad. If you do this deliberately to cause them anguish, then it's torture, and in case you've missed it, this is what US personnel have been doing.
Well, it's certainly been alleged that they did this. In a few cases, it's been proved (those guys are now in Leavenworth).
I tend to believe that "torture" is not so much a matter of intent as it is a matter of effect - even if I feel I'm being wonderfully generous, that hypothetical Muslim isn't going to be feeling all warm and fuzzy about the bacon on his plate.
That's the big difference between us. I take the view that where a rule or law is passed, it is prident to keep the worst in mind. Note that I don't put qualifiers like "purposely seeks to suppress information" in my rule. ANY Law can and WILL be abused, sooner or later.
Sure, one person starts the code. But when other people submit patches, improvements, branch the code, etc, etc. . . are they ALL copyright holders?
In a word, yes. See Title 17:
(a) Initial Ownership.-- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
No, a Devil's Advocate is not a Troll. But I have seen posts that I considered to be those of a Devil's Advocate labelled "Troll", so obviously the distinction is not so clear as you seem to think.
And by the same token, some things that are torture to you aren't torture to me. And vice versa. It is important to understand that I can, with the best of intentions, torture someone - if I serve someone EXACTLY THE SAME FOOD THAT I EAT, I can be torturing a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a PETA member.
The pepperoni pizza isn't torture to me (well, after a few days, that last slice looks like torture), but would be tantamount to forced starvation if it was the only food served to a Muslim. Or a Hindi, in the beef pepperoni variant that they serve in Muslim countries. Is starving someone torture? Yah, I think so. Is it OBVIOUS that doing such to a random person is torture? Not necessarily.
I have a Jewish Uncle. He observes the Jewish Dietary Laws. Sometimes. Would the pepperoni pizza be torture to him? I would expect not, but I've never asked him. Would it be torture to HIS father? No idea, I've never asked him whether his father observes those Dietary Laws.
Is it?
Is it torture to serve bacon and eggs for breakfast? I don't think so, but I'm willing to bet a Muslim would disagree, especially if that was the only food provided.
Is it torture to serve a pizza made with beef-pepperoni? Having eaten one in Kuwait many years ago, I have to say no. A Hindu might disagree. A pepperoni purist might disagree as well.
Is it torture to provide a person with a single bar of soap to wash himself? For me, no. For my wife, quite possibly - she has extremely sensitive skin and can't use the same brand of soap for more than a few days straight without an allergic reaction, so she changes soaps often.
Is it torture to not tell someone where he is being held? Again, a Muslim might find it so - can't face Mecca to pray if you don't know where you are.
Note that there are some things which are clearly torture (ripping someone's fingers off should qualify), and some things which are clearly not (giving someone $1 billion should qualify, though I know a guy who would be tortured by such a gift), and some things are not clearly the one or the other (Three Stooges - funny to most men, torture for most women)....
YOu DID know that Kerry was the author of all the money-laundering and money-tracking parts of USAPATRIOT, right?
If you're that worried about the government's behaviour, perhaps you ought to consider the Second Amendment. Rather more useful if the government becomes tyrannical than the Fourth or Fifth.
Of course, you could certainly BELIEVE that it happened, even if it didn't.
Not for free. You paid for the plan.
I know for a fact non-heavy mobile users get the short end of the stick in the US. I went from spending 10 a month in a prepaid mobile in Spain to spending $35 a month in the cheapest cell plan available for 10 times as much time as I need in calls.
Odd, I'm paying less than $35 each for the three phones I currently pay for. Of course, I seldom use the minutes I pay for, but the long distance calls to the wife would cost me WAY more than $35 per month, if I were doing it the old-fashioned way.
Or did you mean to suggest that Europeans get thier cellphones for free?
60% of 295 million have cellphones in the USA. 177 million subscribers.
So Europe has twice the subscribers and makes 37% more money...
I'll have to call my wife's cell and discuss the ramifications of this for an hour or two (for free, mind you, since our cell plan doesn't charge for that)...
This almost made me laugh hysterically. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the upper tax brackets "willingly give up a greater share" "as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class"?!
If so, I have some great beachfront property to sell you in South Dakota....
Seems to me that the USA was the one who wanted to call the Darfur business genocide, and the UN who said it was not.