The "parts like the stalk and leaves that typically got shredded up and left on the ground" get broken down by microbes thus returning nutrients to the soil. It's the decaying plant matter that makes soil soil instead of a bunch of microscopic rocks. If we start using the whole plant instead of just the ear, we're going to wind up turning the midwest into a giant dust bowl.
Not really. If we start planting corn on corn to cash in on high prices we will. Crop rotation accomplishes the replenishment of the soil you are referring to. Corn is followed by soybeans, a legume. Legumes are responsible for the phenomenon you are referring to. Crop rotation was started in response to the problems of the dirty thirties.
The biomass technologies currently being pioneered by companies such as Poet simply use the chaff, leaving the corn's root system to provide cover over the winter.
First this is just a motion to dismiss in a district court - talk to me if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gets it.
This opinion is about sovereign immunity, the legal theory that states cannot be sued. For all the Federalists in the room this may be a good deal. For those that would like to see less protection for intellectual property - this isn't your decision.
Sovereign Immunity has actually created state funded patent trolls. California schools are financially exploiting patent law by patenting technology and enforcing patents vigorously. When the schools are themselves sued, they raise sovereign immunity. See
Critics Take Aim at California's Patent Shield The Wall Street Journal November 13, 2007 Tuesday, B1 Sorry, no link, I had to pull this off Lexis.
I haven't researched this theory but this holding may have little effect, intellectual property can be "taken" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Ruckelhaus v. Monsanto, 467 U.S. 986, 1001 (1984). Sovereign Immunity is not a shield to a takings claim.
I think some people here mistook the author's use of the word "tech school" for the 2 year, current technology fad, school. I believe its probably of the math/science heavy engineering school variety. Keep in mind, no matter how much you want to "learn something you can use," a good CS program is going to teach you theory because the theory remains fairly constant. It is up to you to apply the theory to the current technology. Having a solid theoretical background makes your skills much more adaptable as technology changes.
I did the liberal arts route and feel that I was adequately prepared for CS. However, my friends that went the engineering school CS route seemed to have more opportunity to focus on certain areas because there were more specialist professors. In contrast, my professors were generalists. I don't think the distinction matters much at the undergrad level.
The biggest advantage of a liberal arts education is that it is well rounded. For example, it facilitates interdisciplinary communication. If you plan on doing something more than staring at a computer screen a L.A. education has advantages. The liberal arts route will be helpful for any job that requires writing, communication, etc. So if you can ever see yourself working with customers/sales/accounting/management/etc. it can't hurt. Also, I have classmates that are starting their own businesses - I know they have found the well rounded liberal arts education helpful.
Take my comments with a grain of salt, I did my time programming but couldn't find the R&D job that allowed me to socialize.I went to law school and now I get to solve far out problems AND meet/interact with people (and the competition/challenge of the adversarial process is very exciting). I feel the well rounded L.A. route allowed me the flexibility for such a transition.
It's not like the iPhone is the only smartphone out there. It is for people that bought it and got locked in. I'm glad you have the ability to buy whatever comes along.
Jobs scares me because he likes to make decisions for me. He may be behind an innovative company but systems that lock-in and lock-out are anti-consumer. DRM is simply a method of lock-in. Dragging your feet on an SDK is lock-out. I can't support products by a company that has a habit of restricting my rights to use something I paid them for.
1. It's brakes. Brakes. Breaks is when something stops working. 2. This is obvious to anyone who has driven much. Try not to use your *brakes* on the motorway. Try to "iron out" the waves by ever so slowly dropping back when you see them approaching. This sounds like the simple empirical studies I have done in my two summers driving the 405, 5, and 101 (I had a lot of time on my hands).
[tongue in cheek]I would like to posit my slingshot theory for Slashdot peer review.[/tongue in cheek]
The idea is that certain drivers leave enough space for a car to slip into during a stop. Further, stop and gos are cyclical. If there are staggered gaps within two parallel lines of traffic, it is possible to merge into a second lane and slingshot into a open spot in the original lane. It is also possible to envision a "ladder climbing" action. The trick is knowing when there is an open spot further up in the original lane. I believe it is possible to calculate the "elasticity" of a lane in order to optimize the likelihood of a successful slingshot.
The problem is - once I have developed my theory and it becomes known, everyone will attempt it. Maybe I can patent it, you can patent anything these days.
So long as they're not making it proprietary, what's the problem? We can both destroy markets and help the world by opening our source, and that's pretty awesome. If someone happens to make some money (maybe consulting, whatever), so be it. Why is destroying markets a good goal? I think a better choice of words would be "revolutionize" or "reinvigorate." OSS doesn't destroy a market - it just makes it more competitive. See this post.
(In the long term, standards of living are improving in India and China as a direct result of outsourcing there, so the workers there are now demanding more money. Hence, there is no efficiency to really be gained, it's all an illusion.) Its no illusion, the "illusiveness" is due to the unequal comparisons of long and short term. Short term - efficiency is gained, long - the market finds equilibrium. The equilibrium position is actually good for all because the market for goods in general has now grown because of new consumers. Short term - it sucks for domestic low skilled jobs. Long term - it will always suck for low skilled jobs. If the next third world country (or immigration) doesn't "steal" low skilled jobs, technology will. At what point will protectionism call for the end of technology? For high skilled jobs - short term = some impact, long term = specialization.
I guess to really sum up my position, the Bill of Rights is countermajoritarian. Most people wont care about the rights that are being lost. Just like we don't care about our gun rights. But if we trusted the majority with protecting our rights, we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights. Really, lets just vote for which rights should be protected. That gets us into domestic spying because the majority of people would rather be safe than have rights. Even the rights we don't care about need protection. If the Supreme Court had realized this sooner It wouldn't have taken nearly 200 years for Brown to be decided.
Further, the Constitution and amendments talk about balancing rights of people, the states, and the federal government. I'd also throw in balancing the rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. The Bill of Rights is a restraint on majoritarian power.
There has only ever been one amendment that prohibited a specific act XIII
I'm sorry I can't give you a better reference for it. Google is your friend, I hope. I'm guessing its in a Federalist, I'll go digging.
But your examples of 'Liberals resgtricting Rights' seem petty and disingenuous which are often the signs of a troll. To me, those are non-issues compared to being spied on with no warrant or having my habeus corpus rights taken from me. Being lied to in order to start a war...it was conservatives who did that. Adding 25% to the national debt...that was conservatives. I don't really care about gun ownership...the only reason I'd want guns would be to protect myself from government. A semi-auto rifle can't compare to the military and para-military police forces out there, even if the Iraqis seem to be pulling it off. I never rendered an opinion on those issues. How have I been disingenuous. You asked "I'm wondering what rights the Democrats would take away from me...", and I answered.
To go point by point:
I have trouble with domestic spying. I can at least try to understand the motivations, rather than rabidly demonizing proponents, but I do think they are overstepping.
I have trouble with any denial of rights of US citizens, whether they were found on a battle field or not.
I have huge problems with the overspending done by conservatives, and I suspect many will realize there are many conservatives that share that view when election time rolls around.
I don't care much about gun ownership either, but I do respect the theory. The framers had the minute man scenario in mind, and regardless of the advancements in technology, the Vietnamese and terrorists have demonstrated that there are ways of leveling the battlefield.
Federal tax code takes money from 'rich' states and gives it to 'poor' states. The Rich states...NY, NJ, CA, CT, etc...all pretty liberals. The poor states? MO, MI, LA, AL, NM, AL which trend conservative. Yeah, you weren't the right person to make that comment to since I have no idea where you live. I live in SD and we are the biggest bunch of government sponges you can find. However, we didn't get to our position through conservative leadership. Rather, the most liberal available. Farm subsidies became a large issue in voting out a certain influential incumbent. It seems that money is a good way to "hook" people who are otherwise conservative. I suspect that the welfare system has a similar affect elsewhere.
Not that I even disagree, but BTW marriage is a church sacrament that they have the say on. Like most everything else, the Gov. has co-opted it to get their cut of *license fees*... Technically marriage is none of the governments business (just like everything else shouldn't be) Mod up. The gay marriage debate is about forced social acceptance of homosexuality. The law already provides civil unions - marriage is simply a contract. There are laws that need to be changed to have a "marriage equivalent" (tax consequences, immigration law, etc.), however the gay marriage debate is all about the use of a word. It's not about rights its about acceptance.
Keep it up Mr. Troll. Keep it up. My liberal income is subsidizing your hate through the Federal Tax Code, and yes, you are welcome. What hate? I just disagree. Subsidizing?
I need to start saving these replies I get to see how similar other's analysis is. A common misunderstanding of economics is the idea that the benefits of more efficient solutions, like free trade (unskilled foreign workers are more "efficient" than higher educated locals) or specialization of labor (you probably don't grow all of your own corn), are outweighed by lost jobs. I added the sig in response to some article about advances in technology costing programmers jobs.
I appreciate your impeccable analysis.
In fact, they aren't rights. They sound like mush-brained talking points.. I couldn't say anything bad about the lies used to invade Iraq without being called a traitor and worse. I couldn't question the use of the fighting in Iraq without being told I hate the troops. You know, shit like that. You seem to want all the benefits of a high-tech society without paying your fair share in taxes. They are textually explicit, which is more than can be said about the rights the liberals hold sacred.
Under liberal activism the following constitutionally guaranteed freedoms have been reduced or eliminated altogether: The Contract Clause - completely abrogated.
The Due Process Clause of the Foruteenthand the Fifth Amendments - altered as to life and property, in some instances personal liberty supersedes others rights to life and property. Socialist agendas have severely limited property rights. Personal autonomy has also been limited by socialism. Limited autonomy impacts all three enumerated classes of inalienable rights. The Establishment Clause - interpreted as broadly as possible to restrict religious freedom. The Free Exercise Clause - interpreted as narrowly as possible to restrict religious freedom.
The Privilages and Immunities Clause of Article Four and the Fourteenth Amendment - completely abrogated. The Tenth Amendment - is "but a truism."
The Takings Clause of the Fifth and the Fourteenth amendments. - interpreted broadly, even granting eminent domain to Wal-Mart in the hopes of increased tax revenue counts as a "public use".
The Right to Bear Arms - severely limited.
The following would rights would be limited if liberals were given the opportunity: Speech and Association Clauses - Pelosi-Claybrook bill that would require Congressional approval for individual citizens' political speech. Press Clause - Pelosi proposal on eliminating conservative talk radio (viewpoint discrimination).
2: A wind turbine needs to be situated on real estate that actually gets wind.
It goes up about 80 feet, so... check. A little too quick on this. I personally know a farmer that has a turbine (Minnesota is pretty progressive with wind power), its a significant investment. You don't just put it "about 80 feet." Location is pretty important.
Put it all together and hydrogen is notably *worse* for the environment than gasoline, while electric cars are better for it. Where does that electricity come from?
IMHO, a significant litmus test is "privacy" or other rights not explicitly specified in the Constitution or amendments. To be perfectly honest, I don't know how Scalia or Thomas weigh on such matters, but it has appeared to me that denial of such rights has tended to be a "Right" thing. I was addressing activist v. original strict constructionist/intentionalist/textualist. I don't remember how those justices came down on privacy in the IV Amendment cases (I don't like crim law), I can tell you that they are definately against Roe's version of privacy rights. Scalia and Thomas don't do "penumbras" from text.
The Constitution explicitly, both in the body and in the Bill of Rights, states that rights not reserved to the Federal or State governments belong to the people. Articles about the framers and the writing of the Bill of Rights state that many were against them, because it was feared that they would be taken by future generations as a "complete enumeration" of peoples' rights. The conservative wing forgets that the BOR is supposed to be countermajoritarian. You don't put it to a vote whenever a minority is being crushed, thats not protection. I'd like a cite to your statement about the framer's fear of enumerated rights. I'd like to have some authority for Con Law tomorrow because I've been subtly pulling some conservative classmates into the fold.
what if this new "senior privacy counsel" just so happens to moonlight at the DoJ (or is it the other way around? And just so happens to let slip some of that information as a bit of gossip at the DoJ water As my MPRE review video says "the lawyer is subject to discipline."
MRPC 1.11(d)
Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or
employee:
...
(2) shall not: ...
(ii) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as
lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and
substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative
officer or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule
1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b). But if the "matter" the lawyer was participating in personally and substantially is over, it looks like she can get involved against another party. Still its kind of a sticky situation, not something I'd risk disbarment over.
The court doesn't have any power to enforce rulings... even if the executive will not. So far things have worked out. Even the Democratic Congress was poised to revolt if FDR's court packing plan was put into action. Further, Eisenhower enforced Brown even though he thought it was the wrong route.
Judges who agree with the Right are "strict constructionist." Hypocrisy noted, Rhenquist was definately an activist. Roberts (the umpire) looks to follow in Rhenquist's shoes. But you have to admit that Scalia and Thomas show restraint most of the time. I'm not counting Souter, Kennedy, O'Conner, or Stevens as being "on the Right" though they are all Republican appointees. I don't know enough about Alito yet.
I'm wondering what rights the Democrats would take away from me... Freedom of the press? If radio isn't Democrat it must carry an equal percentage of the Democrat viewpoint.
Your right to vote? You are too dumb to decide things - elite educated judges (philosopher kings) should do that.
Freedom of speech? You can't say anything bad about anyone (except Christians) even as a joke.
Your right to your paycheck? Your too dumb to decide what to spend your money on.
Freedom of religion - but no one cares about that on Slashdot (thats why its enshrined in the First Amendment - counter-majoritarian).
You are loosing rights and you don't know about it because the people and things affected don't concern you. Its like the criminal defendant that everyone knows did it that gets off because he wasn't Mirandized or a 4th Amendment violation, its the people at the fringes that end up protecting the rights for us all.
Actually, the software company merely harvests wealth from other companies and individuals, while causing a level of wastage itself. Thats only true if you accept the premise that software should be free. Pay for $oftware has benefits over OSS that make it necessary. I think it is best summarized as the problem of niche. The problem of niche can exist in an industry undeserved by OSS, or it can exist in certain features of an application that only a few need/benifit from. The problem of niche can still be seen in Linux. Linux is still techie centric (it is improving). OSS is slow to incorporate features that are unnecessary within the programming/techie communities because the creators of software have no need for "user friendliness" (I realize that this is a broad over-generalization). If its not broke, don't fix it. Further, some features will never (or be a long time coming) get incorporated because so few need it. I will pay big money for some software because that is the only way I can get something that fits my need. Further, it will be worth it (to me) to incentivize its production. The software company will not be "harvesting my wealth," there will have been a equal exchange of value. I will have paid a price that is worth it to me and the software company will have gotten a price that is worth it to them. Certainly, the lack of competition in a niche market restricts my choice but that is the reality of buying software in a niche market. If the software company was ripping me off, there would be an opportunity for competition. OSS is the market responding to an opportunity for competition (see my post here. However, there is not an opportunity for competition in a true niche market, and diminishing opportunities for competition in partial niche markets.
The creation and distribution of software has very low barriers to entry (despite the best efforts of incumbent suppliers), especially when you consider the ability to reuse much existing code. It also has virtually no ongoing costs (distribution and duplication can be done pretty much for free).
This is very different from a market such as producing cars, where there is a significant barrier to entry (you need specialist machinery, and various safety certifications before you can even think about manufacturing cars) and a significant ongoing cost (the specialist machinery is power hungry and needs to be maintained, and each car you produce consumes a significant quantity of raw materials). Software is not as cheap as you would imply. Software has huge initial barriers to entry. People have to write it and, in the case of an operating system, many people have to write it. OSS works because it is being financed by individuals (spare time) and is distributed over many individuals (corporations and foundations sponsor as well). OSS benefits from efficiencies of scale. Reduce the aggregation of individuals and OSS no longer works. OSS has been said to "scratch an itch." OSS is incentivized (in part) by the prospect of self gain (I get to use the OSS software I create as well as that that others create). That itch doesn't get scratched when no one cares about the itch. Niche markets have a tendency to not be served by OSS (granted, niche markets are only variably served by pay for $oftware). Niche software requires additional incentives. Further, even if there was an entity or group willing to sponsor efforts in a niche, such an effort would require industry wide cooperation to prevent unjust enrichment of uncooperative competitors.
Perhaps we need a different OSS model for the problem of niche that recognizes that [Slashdot anathema]some software needs to be financially incentivized[/Slashdot anathema].
How much wealthier would they be if they didn't have to sink as much money/time/resources into Microsoft's (or anyone's) software?
Your reasoning is a classic example of the broken window fallacy. The reason the broken window fallacy is a fallacy is because it is a cost the shopkeeper otherwise would not have had. In modern economic terms, the cost is an externality. That's not analogous to the situation. The parent stated:
the selling of the product creates wealth for the company. The company expands and creates jobs, providing wealth for new employees. The purchasers of the product use the product to generate wealth for themselves. In all of these cases, the tax (income and sales where applicable) revenue enables the expansion of infrastructure and education - thus generating even more... wealth. The money/time/resources were voluntarily expended because the purchaser allocated their resources as they saw fit. This is not the broken window fallacy. You may disagree with the allocation decisions of people that buy software but that doesn't make it an unnecessary cost.
The only analogy between the two situations is that they both are projecting benefits (looking down the line).
::Sigh::
Those are all cross-subsidies. Mod parent up.
Open Source is another example of (dare I say it) not free. It takes labor to create and maintain. The difference is that, to some extent, the consumer is putting in the labor. The consumer becomes the vendor.
In fact open source doesn't obliterate economic theory, it exemplifies it. Software exhibits economics of scale, the bigger you are the cheaper it is to produce. Traditional companies have to make significant investments to make a good product. Open source makes considerable investments, but the cost is/ can be distributed by its cooperative nature. Actually, in this regard OSS is more economically efficient because it reduces reinvention of the wheel. Further, OSS is the natural result of market forces (Adam Smith's invisible hand) because the barriers to entry into software reduce the number of traditional companies, which results in monopolies and oligopolies. The noncompetitive tendency of the market, coupled with the barriers to entry, produce companies that loose their capacity for innovation once they dominate. Lack of competition produces a market opportunity FOR competition. However, monopolists tend to use their best efforts to protect their position. This situation calls for a new model. The solution to market failure is the path of least resistance - the most efficient. A cooperative effort distributes costs and reduces duplicated efforts. In the case of OSS, the new model is lean enough to compete in spite of the anti-competitive efforts of monopolists.
Solutions to market failure come naturally if they are available, an itch needs to be scratched and someone does.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. If we start planting corn on corn to cash in on high prices we will. Crop rotation accomplishes the replenishment of the soil you are referring to. Corn is followed by soybeans, a legume. Legumes are responsible for the phenomenon you are referring to. Crop rotation was started in response to the problems of the dirty thirties.
The biomass technologies currently being pioneered by companies such as Poet simply use the chaff, leaving the corn's root system to provide cover over the winter.
First this is just a motion to dismiss in a district court - talk to me if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gets it.
This opinion is about sovereign immunity, the legal theory that states cannot be sued. For all the Federalists in the room this may be a good deal. For those that would like to see less protection for intellectual property - this isn't your decision.
Sovereign Immunity has actually created state funded patent trolls. California schools are financially exploiting patent law by patenting technology and enforcing patents vigorously. When the schools are themselves sued, they raise sovereign immunity. See Critics Take Aim at California's Patent Shield The Wall Street Journal November 13, 2007 Tuesday, B1
Sorry, no link, I had to pull this off Lexis.
I haven't researched this theory but this holding may have little effect, intellectual property can be "taken" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Ruckelhaus v. Monsanto, 467 U.S. 986, 1001 (1984). Sovereign Immunity is not a shield to a takings claim.
I think some people here mistook the author's use of the word "tech school" for the 2 year, current technology fad, school. I believe its probably of the math/science heavy engineering school variety. Keep in mind, no matter how much you want to "learn something you can use," a good CS program is going to teach you theory because the theory remains fairly constant. It is up to you to apply the theory to the current technology. Having a solid theoretical background makes your skills much more adaptable as technology changes.
I did the liberal arts route and feel that I was adequately prepared for CS. However, my friends that went the engineering school CS route seemed to have more opportunity to focus on certain areas because there were more specialist professors. In contrast, my professors were generalists. I don't think the distinction matters much at the undergrad level.
The biggest advantage of a liberal arts education is that it is well rounded. For example, it facilitates interdisciplinary communication. If you plan on doing something more than staring at a computer screen a L.A. education has advantages. The liberal arts route will be helpful for any job that requires writing, communication, etc. So if you can ever see yourself working with customers/sales/accounting/management/etc. it can't hurt. Also, I have classmates that are starting their own businesses - I know they have found the well rounded liberal arts education helpful.
Take my comments with a grain of salt, I did my time programming but couldn't find the R&D job that allowed me to socialize.I went to law school and now I get to solve far out problems AND meet/interact with people (and the competition/challenge of the adversarial process is very exciting). I feel the well rounded L.A. route allowed me the flexibility for such a transition.
Why not let the market decide?
Jobs scares me because he likes to make decisions for me. He may be behind an innovative company but systems that lock-in and lock-out are anti-consumer. DRM is simply a method of lock-in. Dragging your feet on an SDK is lock-out. I can't support products by a company that has a habit of restricting my rights to use something I paid them for.
[tongue in cheek]I would like to posit my slingshot theory for Slashdot peer review.[/tongue in cheek]
The idea is that certain drivers leave enough space for a car to slip into during a stop. Further, stop and gos are cyclical. If there are staggered gaps within two parallel lines of traffic, it is possible to merge into a second lane and slingshot into a open spot in the original lane. It is also possible to envision a "ladder climbing" action. The trick is knowing when there is an open spot further up in the original lane. I believe it is possible to calculate the "elasticity" of a lane in order to optimize the likelihood of a successful slingshot.
The problem is - once I have developed my theory and it becomes known, everyone will attempt it. Maybe I can patent it, you can patent anything these days.
I guess to really sum up my position, the Bill of Rights is countermajoritarian. Most people wont care about the rights that are being lost. Just like we don't care about our gun rights. But if we trusted the majority with protecting our rights, we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights. Really, lets just vote for which rights should be protected. That gets us into domestic spying because the majority of people would rather be safe than have rights. Even the rights we don't care about need protection. If the Supreme Court had realized this sooner It wouldn't have taken nearly 200 years for Brown to be decided.
To go point by point:
I have trouble with domestic spying. I can at least try to understand the motivations, rather than rabidly demonizing proponents, but I do think they are overstepping.
I have trouble with any denial of rights of US citizens, whether they were found on a battle field or not.
I have huge problems with the overspending done by conservatives, and I suspect many will realize there are many conservatives that share that view when election time rolls around.
I don't care much about gun ownership either, but I do respect the theory. The framers had the minute man scenario in mind, and regardless of the advancements in technology, the Vietnamese and terrorists have demonstrated that there are ways of leveling the battlefield. Federal tax code takes money from 'rich' states and gives it to 'poor' states. The Rich states...NY, NJ, CA, CT, etc...all pretty liberals. The poor states? MO, MI, LA, AL, NM, AL which trend conservative. Yeah, you weren't the right person to make that comment to since I have no idea where you live. I live in SD and we are the biggest bunch of government sponges you can find. However, we didn't get to our position through conservative leadership. Rather, the most liberal available. Farm subsidies became a large issue in voting out a certain influential incumbent. It seems that money is a good way to "hook" people who are otherwise conservative. I suspect that the welfare system has a similar affect elsewhere.
I need to start saving these replies I get to see how similar other's analysis is. A common misunderstanding of economics is the idea that the benefits of more efficient solutions, like free trade (unskilled foreign workers are more "efficient" than higher educated locals) or specialization of labor (you probably don't grow all of your own corn), are outweighed by lost jobs. I added the sig in response to some article about advances in technology costing programmers jobs.
I appreciate your impeccable analysis.
Under liberal activism the following constitutionally guaranteed freedoms have been reduced or eliminated altogether:
The Contract Clause - completely abrogated.
The Due Process Clause of the Foruteenthand the Fifth Amendments - altered as to life and property, in some instances personal liberty supersedes others rights to life and property. Socialist agendas have severely limited property rights. Personal autonomy has also been limited by socialism. Limited autonomy impacts all three enumerated classes of inalienable rights.
The Establishment Clause - interpreted as broadly as possible to restrict religious freedom.
The Free Exercise Clause - interpreted as narrowly as possible to restrict religious freedom.
The Privilages and Immunities Clause of Article Four and the Fourteenth Amendment - completely abrogated.
The Tenth Amendment - is "but a truism."
The Takings Clause of the Fifth and the Fourteenth amendments. - interpreted broadly, even granting eminent domain to Wal-Mart in the hopes of increased tax revenue counts as a "public use".
The Right to Bear Arms - severely limited.
The following would rights would be limited if liberals were given the opportunity:
Speech and Association Clauses - Pelosi-Claybrook bill that would require Congressional approval for individual citizens' political speech.
Press Clause - Pelosi proposal on eliminating conservative talk radio (viewpoint discrimination).
...
(2) shall not:
(ii) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b). But if the "matter" the lawyer was participating in personally and substantially is over, it looks like she can get involved against another party. Still its kind of a sticky situation, not something I'd risk disbarment over.
Your right to vote? You are too dumb to decide things - elite educated judges (philosopher kings) should do that.
Freedom of speech? You can't say anything bad about anyone (except Christians) even as a joke.
Your right to your paycheck? Your too dumb to decide what to spend your money on.
Freedom of religion - but no one cares about that on Slashdot (thats why its enshrined in the First Amendment - counter-majoritarian).
You are loosing rights and you don't know about it because the people and things affected don't concern you. Its like the criminal defendant that everyone knows did it that gets off because he wasn't Mirandized or a 4th Amendment violation, its the people at the fringes that end up protecting the rights for us all.
Perhaps we need a different OSS model for the problem of niche that recognizes that [Slashdot anathema]some software needs to be financially incentivized[/Slashdot anathema].
The only analogy between the two situations is that they both are projecting benefits (looking down the line).
::Sigh:: Those are all cross-subsidies. Mod parent up.Open Source is another example of (dare I say it) not free. It takes labor to create and maintain. The difference is that, to some extent, the consumer is putting in the labor. The consumer becomes the vendor.
In fact open source doesn't obliterate economic theory, it exemplifies it. Software exhibits economics of scale, the bigger you are the cheaper it is to produce. Traditional companies have to make significant investments to make a good product. Open source makes considerable investments, but the cost is/ can be distributed by its cooperative nature. Actually, in this regard OSS is more economically efficient because it reduces reinvention of the wheel. Further, OSS is the natural result of market forces (Adam Smith's invisible hand) because the barriers to entry into software reduce the number of traditional companies, which results in monopolies and oligopolies. The noncompetitive tendency of the market, coupled with the barriers to entry, produce companies that loose their capacity for innovation once they dominate. Lack of competition produces a market opportunity FOR competition. However, monopolists tend to use their best efforts to protect their position. This situation calls for a new model. The solution to market failure is the path of least resistance - the most efficient. A cooperative effort distributes costs and reduces duplicated efforts. In the case of OSS, the new model is lean enough to compete in spite of the anti-competitive efforts of monopolists.
Solutions to market failure come naturally if they are available, an itch needs to be scratched and someone does.