You are still arguing semantics though and taking the quote out of context.
"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The second part of the quote is very important in that it defines the equality that is spoken of. It does not attempt to show that all men are created equal in every way, but rather, that all men share, at their creation, an unalienable right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness, and these rights being unalienable, it is the duty of a just society to protect those rights in all individuals. If the quote were "...life, intellect, birthrights, physical makeup and sense of humor" then you would be dead on, and the quote would be rediculous, but in this case, the quote is specifically enumerating only 3 qualities that all men are created equal in, that being that they are all 1) Alive, and "deserve to be" in that their life should not be taken away willfully, they all deserve liberty, and no one should be allowed to restrict their freedom to do what they desire unless it restrict the freedom of another, and they all have an equal right to pursue happiness. These rights can be trampled upon by their society, for if they couldn't, there would be no need for such an enumeration, but the fact that a right is breached does not invalidate the right.
Now, if you would like to restate your objection sans out of context strawman...
The Federalist Papers do use the ability to form defensive militias as a strong argument for an armed populace, but they also have a solid argument for an armed populace in order to defend against domestic injustice.
"Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence For the Independent Journal" describes their unity through the joint use of arms in rising up against their oppressive government.
"The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union" describes how the use of force against an unarmed populace to invoke rule against their will is largely ineffectual, and argues for the constitution on this ground.
"The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the
Union" describes the wisdom of the Greeks in taking up arms against the Persians, but their folly in not rapidly instituting a reformed government.
But the death knell to that argument, and the current Supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment based on their divining the intent of the authors, comes from Hamilton in his paper, "Concerning the Militia" where he states explicitly that the best defense against foreign invasion is a standing army, and the best defense against a standing army being used against the people by a corrupt government is a well armed populace, allowed to arm themselves at least as completely as the standing army itself.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be
abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of
the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as
possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed
to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such
principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By
thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an
excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field
whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not
only lessen the call for military establishments, but if
circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens,
little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of
arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their
fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be
devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against
it, if it should exist."
This might be a sole reason for a clause written pre-revolution, but the constitution is a post-revolutionary document written by a new government that just rose up against it's previous government through the use of 1) A rapidly formed and often self-armed continental government 2) No small use of conscriptionary forces and 3) Individual unorganized small guerilla forces. If we look at the mindset many of these people had as being exemplified in the Declaration of Independance a few years previous, they believed that in EVERY government there comes a time that the populace must rise up by force to reform it. With these facts in mind, I severely doubt that the only reason the fledgling government wanted to ensure that there remained the right for the populace to arm themselves was to protect small communities from the occassional indian raid (although it might be a considered tertiary benefit).
Additionally, most of the maurauding indian raids were not a product of the indians, but rather the alliance of major tribes with the British in the days leading up to the war and through the war of 1812. The Americans weren't relying on the British to defend them, as the indians were mostly British allies anyway.
Of course no sane person is going to directly attack the US government with handguns. Of course that is silly.
The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent. The government cannot suppress the population by force without armed conflict. Armed conflict against their own homes causes dissent amongst the military, splitting it into rebellious factions and leading to greater conflicts, eventually overthrowing the government by it's own military since militia siding with the oppressive government face hostile evironments even without direct conflict whereas the populaces militia is supplied and reinforced at every turn. Because this is such a stupid position for a government to get itself into, it would never do so as long as the populace remains armed. So the point of ownership is not to fight the US military head to head, but to ensure you never have to.
I know. That's why I said "simulation running 1 billion neurons at 1 Gigahertz", not "machine operating at 1 Ghz." Assuming that a single Neuron can be simulated in 1 billionth of a second (AKA, 1 Ghz) then a billion neurons can be simulated in 1 second at 1Hz. This doesn't account for the ram required to store the neural output of a billion Neurons, or the actual processor hardware required.
If a single neuron can be simulated using a more reasonable average of 400 cycles, (if we assume mathmatically modeled neurons, rather than actual neural simulation) then a 4 Ghz processor can do 10 Million Neurons per second. In order to build a 1 Ghz realtime network using these assumptions, you would either need a cluster of 100 4Ghz machines (doable) or a single 400Ghz machine (not doable currently). Again, this does not take into account other latency, which probably is another factor of 2 difference.
For realistic human brain simulations, we have to magnify this factor by 100, because the brain has about 100 Billion Neurons, and another 100, because neurons actually operate at between 50-200 hz normally. That gives us, compensating for latency, about 2 million 4 Ghz machines in our cluster to simulate the human brain, or a single machine running (assuming no communication latency because we are linear) at 4 PHz (Petahertz). Assuming Moores law holds, I should have a 1HP (one humanpower... the equivelent in brain processing to a horsepower... and yes, I just made that up) machine on my desk in about the year 2035.
These are just rough, back of the napkin (or rather, slashdot textbox) calculations done for my own amusement though.
You don't need a fast Neural network:) Your neural network is only on the order of a few hertz. A linear simulation running 1billion neurons at 1 Gigahertz can simulate a 1 billion neural network running at 1 hertz in real time.
That question is the basis for our differing philosophies:)
The state is the most powerful use of organized violence possible against an individual. Any requirement of the state is equivelent to holding a gun to an individual's head and forcing, through the threat of loss of liberty and life, the individual to perform or not perform an act. That is a very potent power and in my personal philosophy, one that should be reserved for use only when an individual directly endangers the rights of another.
To give an example, there is a direct causal relationship between ingestion of twinkies and morbid obesity. Morbid obesity also destroys the life of the individual, and causes similar pain amongst family members witnessing it, etc. Why not make twinkies illegal? They have no redeeming value nutritionally and are purely a recreational substance after all. This kind of logic gives rise to the idea of the state legislating good and healthy behavior to the individual. Although this may seem like not such a bad thing at first glance, it is akin to me holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take your vitamins. It is, in my opinion, an unnecissary abuse of an extreme power. The job of the state should be checked and relegated to a position of protecting the rights of it's citizens, NOT the job of ensuring the best judgement of it's citizens. For the state to begin enforcing good judgement implies that there exists an absolute best judgement and that such judgement is unerringly known to the state, and that the judgement of the state always acts in the individuals best interest, and down such an authoritarian path lies corruption for the gain of the ruling members of the state initially, and eventually fascism.
I would rather live in a society where people are fully allowed to do stupid things as long as they do not directly restrict my rights to life and liberty, than live in a society where my liberty is restricted in order to ensure that people do not do stupid things. I am perfectly capable, as is every other non mentally disabled citizen, of not doing stupid things of my own accord. In addition, I also see it as unjust for the state to use it's power for compulse me to fix the problems caused by someone doing stupid things, but that's another discussion altogether:)
I am claiming that the use of drugs has no negative affect on anyone but the user. Any crimes committed while the user is under the influence DOES have a negative affect. The issues are seperate. The use of a drug, since it has no adverse effect by itself, is fully covered by any "right to privacy" the constitution might provide because, just like abortion, it is a consenting party doing what they please with their own body and if there is such a constitutional provision, then no government under the US constitution has the right to enforce legislation prohibiting such behavior. Now you *could* pass legislation making drugs themselves contrabnd, but the possesion of the drug would be the only crime and the use of them would be non-criminal. This may be the actual loophole legislatures currently use to get around the privacy issue, I'm not really sure. On the other hand, euthanasia, which is an act and not a substance, most surely cannot be legislated against in the wake of any implied right to privacy.
Wrong. The rape of 2 year old girls involves the direct victimization of another person, violating their constitutional rights. A private agreement between you and I, allowing you to do whatever I want you to do with my body, e.g. kill me in euthanasia or for-profit sports, is a concentual agreement between the two of us with no third party victimization and therefore, if there truely exists an implied right to privacy, then that is a constitutionally protected right for the two of us to practice bloodsport:) albeit, that's an extreme example. Drug abuse, euthanasia, etc. are more realistic examples that could be tried under such justification. This has nothing to do with the "right to life" but rather, the "right to privacy, to do whatever you like to each other in a concentual arrangement."
I'm not saying that the doctor-patient relationship should be breached by the government in the case of abortion, I'm just stating that the justification in Roe v. Wade is flawed and by it's logic invalidates a very large class of accepted legislation both on the state and federal levels. It is my opinion that such a widespread right to privacy, although very possibly a human right, is not a constitutionally protected one, and therefore is a right that the federal government has no jurisdiction over without the suspension of logic. Therefore it is a case to be handed down to the state governments for legislation under amendment 10.
Remember, that the decision in Roe v. Wade has very wide sweeping concequences outside of the abortion issue. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice has very little to do with the constitutional issues surrounding the case. Personally, being of the Libertarian persuasion, I rather like the idea of an enumerated constitutional right to privacy, butI disagree that it actually exists without the passing of a constitutional amendment, which would never happen because the idea of such a narrow restriction on legislature would be very unpopular.
No, you still have all your rights not expressly denied by law. The right to privacy, if as you say is not enumerated by the constitution, then falls to the state to protect it according to amendment 10. If the state makes a law that violates this "right to privacy" and that law does not violate any state constitution, then that law is indeed completely legal. Your quoted would be more accurately paraphrased as:
"Just because we didn't list a right here, doesn't mean you don't have that right. You may or may not have that right based on other laws not enumerated here, but the absence of any enumeration in this document will in no way be interpreted to mean that such a right cannot exist"
Well, RvW actually cites that the violation of ones privacy is prohibited by the constitution under illegal search, and therefore exempt from amendment X.
However, the big inconsistency is the implications of such a widespread privacy connotation by the constitution. RvW applies it only to abortion as that is a medical decision of a woman doing something private to her body. There really is no reason why such a decision doesn't also make all drug use legal, as well as euthanasia, suicide, even bloodsports. Such a decision expressly forbids any state or the federal congress from making any law restricting the open practice of televised gladiators! Of course, no one has really pressed this issue, as even hinting that there might be something wrong with the logic of the decision is political suicide, but damnit, I want my network television Autoduel! How cool is that?!? AADA on ESPN, the Harvey "Moose" Malone in his Modified Timeshifter Photon Plus with MFR bumpertrigger goes up against Crazy Rodney Steamer in the infamous Vlad the Impala equipped with a brushcutting ramplate!
Roe Vs. Wade says I can have that, and damnit, I want autoduel! It's *IMPLIED* to be my unalienable right!
Here in Usia we're on a much better curve. Consumer bandwidth, although stalling out for a bit around 33.6Kbps, has gone up, and continues to go up dramatically for the last few years, the norm currently being around 1Mbdp, soon to be 4Mbps with promises of widespread 100Mbps within the next couple years. 2 years ago about 256Kbps was normal, and 2 years before that 56Kbps was the norm. LAN wise, I can buy 1Gbps ethernet for about 30% of what 10Mbps cost me in 1998, and 10Gbps is coming down in price rapidly (although still outside of consumer level pricing). I'm not sure how the commercial backbone bandwith is doing, but if anything the speed and reliability seems to be getting better dispite the aggressive internet growth and increased viral and spam traffic, not to mention all the increased popularity of streaming multimedia.
That's the US, and I have Europeans tell me THAT's slow:) The major bottleneck in home bandwidth usage here seems to be server side performance, not pipe, which is a welcome change from a few years ago.
It's been done in a bot I saw a few years ago called Alice. It's a good technique. Alice actually typed in real time and would go so far as to delete a few chars back to correct a typo.
Yes, but while bandwidth is on an exponential upward curve, and virus traffic is on an exponential upward curve, user education seems to be distinctively linear and possibly not even positive, so it's really not a realistic way to combat this. So, more money for us due to technological Darwinism!
The one on the left is Coke, the other 3 are Red Talking Rain. Personally, I'm a Green Talking Rain programmer, but I can respect teh other side:) Talking rain (particularly green) is the nectar of the programmers here in Seattle.
You see, Microsoft started the great thing a few years back where every floor was stocked with 2 giant refrigerators of free soda. The rest of the local software companies quickly moved to copy this ingenious move, so you can't program and not be in contact will all the free soda you can drink. This sounds pretty cool until you've done it for about 2 years. At that time, assuming you are not a natural soda addict, the last thing on earth you want to drink is any kind of beverage with sugar in it, because you are so unbelievably sugared out. In come Talking Rain. Talking Rain is a simple carbonated spring water, with just a hint of fruit oil added, and no sugar. Green Talking Rain adds lime oil, and Red Talking Rain adds Rasberry, I think, although being a Greener myself, I never really paid attention. The fact that only senior programmers have completed this Talking Rain pupation, allows you to easily glance at someone's trash can in their office and peg them for a Senior or Junior level developer. You will almost never see a Junior level developer drinking Talking Rain, and almost never see a Senior level NOT drink it. Kind of a free soda pecking order.
Of course I may be reading to much into this, but my Greener roots run deep:)
That means I have to pay for my own corporate ISP *AND* I am forced to pay for half of your government one too. That way you can call yours "cheaper" because it is when you have a gun to other peoples heads making them pay the bill for you.
Government solutions are almost always more expensive than even the worst monopolies. That being said, I see little evidence of any ISP monopolies, in fact it's a business I still see occassionally run by one man operations in their spare time.
Um... yes they do, or rather *I* have done so. I worked for a company porting filtering software up to high end routers so that it could be filtered en masse. We could filter based on an amazing array of details, and could even intelligently filter some content, such as if the sites content was unknown to the filter DB but has text cuss words, or images the machine's neural net thought were porn. Most companies only turned on the porn filter, but we could filter on shopping, political parties, news, etc... This was all back 5 years ago, so I can imagine what that device can do these days.
It does magicaly slow over time. Patching happens constantly and most patches slow the machine a little more. I've seen bery noticable slowdown over time on controlled servers.
Who wants to be promoted from programmer? Think of what's above that:
Dev Lead -- Show up at 7am instead of 10am and get blamed for everyone's mistakes instead of your own for a measily 10% pay raise.
CTO -- Get blamed for everything that goes wrong in the company on the technology end. Show up at 6 or 7am every day and spend 12 hours a day in meetings.
:) Just trying to help as your experience seems rather odd. I've got a couple 400Mhz AMD K6-2's here doing a couple low-processor overhead jobs with $5 gigabit lan cards in them, ie no hardware caching or anything, and they run like champs under heavy network load. Now they do have trouble hitting their maximum throughput as the procs only seem to be able to keep up with about 400Mbps, but they don't break down under the load, or even show high processor usage when just listening. I have never seen a machine not keep up on an uninfected, switched LAN in fact, no matter how slow. I suspect there is something else going on, perhapse faulty hardware, perhapse some rougue broadcast protocol, who knows. 900Mhz is by no means what I would consider a "slow" machine. A bit past it's prime, but it should be able to lead a productive life as a file server or firewall or something without choking on the network.
I worked *at* microsoft. I'm in the lab with my cluster one day, which were all on some bulk key licence. These are all test machines and are reimaged fairly regularly. One day, they all stop working. None of my licence keys work anymore and I'm stuck not being able to test anything. I call down to help desk to find out what's going on and find I'm over my limit, so the key shut off with one of the required security patches. I'm pleading for new keys, and well, they don't do the bulk anymore so I get individuals. I have to hand attend to 25 seperate *headless* boxen to manually type in 25 different keys. This is INSIDE Microsoft on Microsoft hardware in a Microsoft lab!
I can't imagine what would happen if this scenario played out outside Microsoft, where they can't just make up new keys, in a production system. That is the reason I will never recommend MS servers for the enterprise. I don't care how good they are, I can't afford to have boxes turning themselves off unexpectedly because I didn't talk to them in the proper tone of voice.
Definately. I've got machines slower than that here running on my gigabit lan with no problems. I suspect he either is using all hubs instead of switches and his network is huge, or is completely pwned by a worm and doesn't know it. Even "unreasonable broadcast traffic" from some protocol isn't going to tax a machine that's at least a pentium classic.
Slashdot Mirror
You are still arguing semantics though and taking the quote out of context.
"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The second part of the quote is very important in that it defines the equality that is spoken of. It does not attempt to show that all men are created equal in every way, but rather, that all men share, at their creation, an unalienable right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness, and these rights being unalienable, it is the duty of a just society to protect those rights in all individuals. If the quote were "...life, intellect, birthrights, physical makeup and sense of humor" then you would be dead on, and the quote would be rediculous, but in this case, the quote is specifically enumerating only 3 qualities that all men are created equal in, that being that they are all 1) Alive, and "deserve to be" in that their life should not be taken away willfully, they all deserve liberty, and no one should be allowed to restrict their freedom to do what they desire unless it restrict the freedom of another, and they all have an equal right to pursue happiness. These rights can be trampled upon by their society, for if they couldn't, there would be no need for such an enumeration, but the fact that a right is breached does not invalidate the right.
Now, if you would like to restate your objection sans out of context strawman...
The Federalist Papers do use the ability to form defensive militias as a strong argument for an armed populace, but they also have a solid argument for an armed populace in order to defend against domestic injustice.
"Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence For the Independent Journal" describes their unity through the joint use of arms in rising up against their oppressive government.
"The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union" describes how the use of force against an unarmed populace to invoke rule against their will is largely ineffectual, and argues for the constitution on this ground.
"The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union" describes the wisdom of the Greeks in taking up arms against the Persians, but their folly in not rapidly instituting a reformed government.
But the death knell to that argument, and the current Supreme court's interpretation of the second amendment based on their divining the intent of the authors, comes from Hamilton in his paper, "Concerning the Militia" where he states explicitly that the best defense against foreign invasion is a standing army, and the best defense against a standing army being used against the people by a corrupt government is a well armed populace, allowed to arm themselves at least as completely as the standing army itself.
This might be a sole reason for a clause written pre-revolution, but the constitution is a post-revolutionary document written by a new government that just rose up against it's previous government through the use of 1) A rapidly formed and often self-armed continental government 2) No small use of conscriptionary forces and 3) Individual unorganized small guerilla forces. If we look at the mindset many of these people had as being exemplified in the Declaration of Independance a few years previous, they believed that in EVERY government there comes a time that the populace must rise up by force to reform it. With these facts in mind, I severely doubt that the only reason the fledgling government wanted to ensure that there remained the right for the populace to arm themselves was to protect small communities from the occassional indian raid (although it might be a considered tertiary benefit).
Additionally, most of the maurauding indian raids were not a product of the indians, but rather the alliance of major tribes with the British in the days leading up to the war and through the war of 1812. The Americans weren't relying on the British to defend them, as the indians were mostly British allies anyway.
Of course no sane person is going to directly attack the US government with handguns. Of course that is silly.
The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent. The government cannot suppress the population by force without armed conflict. Armed conflict against their own homes causes dissent amongst the military, splitting it into rebellious factions and leading to greater conflicts, eventually overthrowing the government by it's own military since militia siding with the oppressive government face hostile evironments even without direct conflict whereas the populaces militia is supplied and reinforced at every turn. Because this is such a stupid position for a government to get itself into, it would never do so as long as the populace remains armed. So the point of ownership is not to fight the US military head to head, but to ensure you never have to.
I know. That's why I said "simulation running 1 billion neurons at 1 Gigahertz", not "machine operating at 1 Ghz." Assuming that a single Neuron can be simulated in 1 billionth of a second (AKA, 1 Ghz) then a billion neurons can be simulated in 1 second at 1Hz. This doesn't account for the ram required to store the neural output of a billion Neurons, or the actual processor hardware required.
If a single neuron can be simulated using a more reasonable average of 400 cycles, (if we assume mathmatically modeled neurons, rather than actual neural simulation) then a 4 Ghz processor can do 10 Million Neurons per second. In order to build a 1 Ghz realtime network using these assumptions, you would either need a cluster of 100 4Ghz machines (doable) or a single 400Ghz machine (not doable currently). Again, this does not take into account other latency, which probably is another factor of 2 difference.
For realistic human brain simulations, we have to magnify this factor by 100, because the brain has about 100 Billion Neurons, and another 100, because neurons actually operate at between 50-200 hz normally. That gives us, compensating for latency, about 2 million 4 Ghz machines in our cluster to simulate the human brain, or a single machine running (assuming no communication latency because we are linear) at 4 PHz (Petahertz). Assuming Moores law holds, I should have a 1HP (one humanpower... the equivelent in brain processing to a horsepower... and yes, I just made that up) machine on my desk in about the year 2035.
These are just rough, back of the napkin (or rather, slashdot textbox) calculations done for my own amusement though.
You don't need a fast Neural network :) Your neural network is only on the order of a few hertz. A linear simulation running 1billion neurons at 1 Gigahertz can simulate a 1 billion neural network running at 1 hertz in real time.
That question is the basis for our differing philosophies :)
:)
The state is the most powerful use of organized violence possible against an individual. Any requirement of the state is equivelent to holding a gun to an individual's head and forcing, through the threat of loss of liberty and life, the individual to perform or not perform an act. That is a very potent power and in my personal philosophy, one that should be reserved for use only when an individual directly endangers the rights of another.
To give an example, there is a direct causal relationship between ingestion of twinkies and morbid obesity. Morbid obesity also destroys the life of the individual, and causes similar pain amongst family members witnessing it, etc. Why not make twinkies illegal? They have no redeeming value nutritionally and are purely a recreational substance after all. This kind of logic gives rise to the idea of the state legislating good and healthy behavior to the individual. Although this may seem like not such a bad thing at first glance, it is akin to me holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take your vitamins. It is, in my opinion, an unnecissary abuse of an extreme power. The job of the state should be checked and relegated to a position of protecting the rights of it's citizens, NOT the job of ensuring the best judgement of it's citizens. For the state to begin enforcing good judgement implies that there exists an absolute best judgement and that such judgement is unerringly known to the state, and that the judgement of the state always acts in the individuals best interest, and down such an authoritarian path lies corruption for the gain of the ruling members of the state initially, and eventually fascism.
I would rather live in a society where people are fully allowed to do stupid things as long as they do not directly restrict my rights to life and liberty, than live in a society where my liberty is restricted in order to ensure that people do not do stupid things. I am perfectly capable, as is every other non mentally disabled citizen, of not doing stupid things of my own accord. In addition, I also see it as unjust for the state to use it's power for compulse me to fix the problems caused by someone doing stupid things, but that's another discussion altogether
I am claiming that the use of drugs has no negative affect on anyone but the user. Any crimes committed while the user is under the influence DOES have a negative affect. The issues are seperate. The use of a drug, since it has no adverse effect by itself, is fully covered by any "right to privacy" the constitution might provide because, just like abortion, it is a consenting party doing what they please with their own body and if there is such a constitutional provision, then no government under the US constitution has the right to enforce legislation prohibiting such behavior. Now you *could* pass legislation making drugs themselves contrabnd, but the possesion of the drug would be the only crime and the use of them would be non-criminal. This may be the actual loophole legislatures currently use to get around the privacy issue, I'm not really sure. On the other hand, euthanasia, which is an act and not a substance, most surely cannot be legislated against in the wake of any implied right to privacy.
Wrong. The rape of 2 year old girls involves the direct victimization of another person, violating their constitutional rights. A private agreement between you and I, allowing you to do whatever I want you to do with my body, e.g. kill me in euthanasia or for-profit sports, is a concentual agreement between the two of us with no third party victimization and therefore, if there truely exists an implied right to privacy, then that is a constitutionally protected right for the two of us to practice bloodsport :) albeit, that's an extreme example. Drug abuse, euthanasia, etc. are more realistic examples that could be tried under such justification. This has nothing to do with the "right to life" but rather, the "right to privacy, to do whatever you like to each other in a concentual arrangement."
I'm not saying that the doctor-patient relationship should be breached by the government in the case of abortion, I'm just stating that the justification in Roe v. Wade is flawed and by it's logic invalidates a very large class of accepted legislation both on the state and federal levels. It is my opinion that such a widespread right to privacy, although very possibly a human right, is not a constitutionally protected one, and therefore is a right that the federal government has no jurisdiction over without the suspension of logic. Therefore it is a case to be handed down to the state governments for legislation under amendment 10.
Remember, that the decision in Roe v. Wade has very wide sweeping concequences outside of the abortion issue. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice has very little to do with the constitutional issues surrounding the case. Personally, being of the Libertarian persuasion, I rather like the idea of an enumerated constitutional right to privacy, butI disagree that it actually exists without the passing of a constitutional amendment, which would never happen because the idea of such a narrow restriction on legislature would be very unpopular.
No, you still have all your rights not expressly denied by law. The right to privacy, if as you say is not enumerated by the constitution, then falls to the state to protect it according to amendment 10. If the state makes a law that violates this "right to privacy" and that law does not violate any state constitution, then that law is indeed completely legal. Your quoted would be more accurately paraphrased as:
"Just because we didn't list a right here, doesn't mean you don't have that right. You may or may not have that right based on other laws not enumerated here, but the absence of any enumeration in this document will in no way be interpreted to mean that such a right cannot exist"
Well, RvW actually cites that the violation of ones privacy is prohibited by the constitution under illegal search, and therefore exempt from amendment X.
However, the big inconsistency is the implications of such a widespread privacy connotation by the constitution. RvW applies it only to abortion as that is a medical decision of a woman doing something private to her body. There really is no reason why such a decision doesn't also make all drug use legal, as well as euthanasia, suicide, even bloodsports. Such a decision expressly forbids any state or the federal congress from making any law restricting the open practice of televised gladiators! Of course, no one has really pressed this issue, as even hinting that there might be something wrong with the logic of the decision is political suicide, but damnit, I want my network television Autoduel! How cool is that?!? AADA on ESPN, the Harvey "Moose" Malone in his Modified Timeshifter Photon Plus with MFR bumpertrigger goes up against Crazy Rodney Steamer in the infamous Vlad the Impala equipped with a brushcutting ramplate!
Roe Vs. Wade says I can have that, and damnit, I want autoduel! It's *IMPLIED* to be my unalienable right!
Sorry.. I got carried away there...
Ouch. That sucks.
:) The major bottleneck in home bandwidth usage here seems to be server side performance, not pipe, which is a welcome change from a few years ago.
Here in Usia we're on a much better curve. Consumer bandwidth, although stalling out for a bit around 33.6Kbps, has gone up, and continues to go up dramatically for the last few years, the norm currently being around 1Mbdp, soon to be 4Mbps with promises of widespread 100Mbps within the next couple years. 2 years ago about 256Kbps was normal, and 2 years before that 56Kbps was the norm. LAN wise, I can buy 1Gbps ethernet for about 30% of what 10Mbps cost me in 1998, and 10Gbps is coming down in price rapidly (although still outside of consumer level pricing). I'm not sure how the commercial backbone bandwith is doing, but if anything the speed and reliability seems to be getting better dispite the aggressive internet growth and increased viral and spam traffic, not to mention all the increased popularity of streaming multimedia.
That's the US, and I have Europeans tell me THAT's slow
It's been done in a bot I saw a few years ago called Alice. It's a good technique. Alice actually typed in real time and would go so far as to delete a few chars back to correct a typo.
Yes, but while bandwidth is on an exponential upward curve, and virus traffic is on an exponential upward curve, user education seems to be distinctively linear and possibly not even positive, so it's really not a realistic way to combat this. So, more money for us due to technological Darwinism!
BLASPHEMY!
The one on the left is Coke, the other 3 are Red Talking Rain. Personally, I'm a Green Talking Rain programmer, but I can respect teh other side :) Talking rain (particularly green) is the nectar of the programmers here in Seattle.
:)
You see, Microsoft started the great thing a few years back where every floor was stocked with 2 giant refrigerators of free soda. The rest of the local software companies quickly moved to copy this ingenious move, so you can't program and not be in contact will all the free soda you can drink. This sounds pretty cool until you've done it for about 2 years. At that time, assuming you are not a natural soda addict, the last thing on earth you want to drink is any kind of beverage with sugar in it, because you are so unbelievably sugared out. In come Talking Rain. Talking Rain is a simple carbonated spring water, with just a hint of fruit oil added, and no sugar. Green Talking Rain adds lime oil, and Red Talking Rain adds Rasberry, I think, although being a Greener myself, I never really paid attention. The fact that only senior programmers have completed this Talking Rain pupation, allows you to easily glance at someone's trash can in their office and peg them for a Senior or Junior level developer. You will almost never see a Junior level developer drinking Talking Rain, and almost never see a Senior level NOT drink it. Kind of a free soda pecking order.
Of course I may be reading to much into this, but my Greener roots run deep
That means I have to pay for my own corporate ISP *AND* I am forced to pay for half of your government one too. That way you can call yours "cheaper" because it is when you have a gun to other peoples heads making them pay the bill for you.
Government solutions are almost always more expensive than even the worst monopolies. That being said, I see little evidence of any ISP monopolies, in fact it's a business I still see occassionally run by one man operations in their spare time.
Um... yes they do, or rather *I* have done so. I worked for a company porting filtering software up to high end routers so that it could be filtered en masse. We could filter based on an amazing array of details, and could even intelligently filter some content, such as if the sites content was unknown to the filter DB but has text cuss words, or images the machine's neural net thought were porn. Most companies only turned on the porn filter, but we could filter on shopping, political parties, news, etc... This was all back 5 years ago, so I can imagine what that device can do these days.
It does magicaly slow over time. Patching happens constantly and most patches slow the machine a little more. I've seen bery noticable slowdown over time on controlled servers.
Who wants to be promoted from programmer? Think of what's above that:
Dev Lead -- Show up at 7am instead of 10am and get blamed for everyone's mistakes instead of your own for a measily 10% pay raise.
CTO -- Get blamed for everything that goes wrong in the company on the technology end. Show up at 6 or 7am every day and spend 12 hours a day in meetings.
No thanks.
:) Just trying to help as your experience seems rather odd. I've got a couple 400Mhz AMD K6-2's here doing a couple low-processor overhead jobs with $5 gigabit lan cards in them, ie no hardware caching or anything, and they run like champs under heavy network load. Now they do have trouble hitting their maximum throughput as the procs only seem to be able to keep up with about 400Mbps, but they don't break down under the load, or even show high processor usage when just listening. I have never seen a machine not keep up on an uninfected, switched LAN in fact, no matter how slow. I suspect there is something else going on, perhapse faulty hardware, perhapse some rougue broadcast protocol, who knows. 900Mhz is by no means what I would consider a "slow" machine. A bit past it's prime, but it should be able to lead a productive life as a file server or firewall or something without choking on the network.
Nah. It's more fun to cry about how we're all going to die from lack of IP addresses and peak oil.
Ah, but DOS had it's roots in CP/M, which did run on 4 and 8 bit systems such as the 8085 and 65xx series.
I worked *at* microsoft. I'm in the lab with my cluster one day, which were all on some bulk key licence. These are all test machines and are reimaged fairly regularly. One day, they all stop working. None of my licence keys work anymore and I'm stuck not being able to test anything. I call down to help desk to find out what's going on and find I'm over my limit, so the key shut off with one of the required security patches. I'm pleading for new keys, and well, they don't do the bulk anymore so I get individuals. I have to hand attend to 25 seperate *headless* boxen to manually type in 25 different keys. This is INSIDE Microsoft on Microsoft hardware in a Microsoft lab!
I can't imagine what would happen if this scenario played out outside Microsoft, where they can't just make up new keys, in a production system. That is the reason I will never recommend MS servers for the enterprise. I don't care how good they are, I can't afford to have boxes turning themselves off unexpectedly because I didn't talk to them in the proper tone of voice.
Definately. I've got machines slower than that here running on my gigabit lan with no problems. I suspect he either is using all hubs instead of switches and his network is huge, or is completely pwned by a worm and doesn't know it. Even "unreasonable broadcast traffic" from some protocol isn't going to tax a machine that's at least a pentium classic.