The states are and were FULLY autonomous states under both the articles and the constitution. They voluntarily agreed to first a weak, and then a stronger compact that provides for their common defense and a super-free-trade zone.
The CSA was completely in the right in their leaving the USA and forming a new government, from a constitutional law standpoint.
However, once it became a new nation, the States of the USA were completely justified in declaring war on the CSA states from a Natural Law perspective. Anyone has the Natural Right to stop murder, rape or physical enslavement. John Brown is one of my personal heros. He didn't wait for government authority to try to end slavery. He just gathered men and seized a government armory.
People can act against governments that allow murder, rape or physical enslavement and so can States, as States are merely confederations of sovereign individuals.
The reason why the articles failed was because the states did not agree to give the national government the power to collect taxes from the states and disallow barriers to inter-state trade. Without power to tax there was no way to pay back war debts.
I really don't see why you would think I favor the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution when I was advocating the super-free-trade scenario that only came when the Constitution was created. Before the Constitution, States had their own currencies and set up inter-state tarrifs. Under the Articles of Confederation, States set up harmfull protectionist policies. This was why it was doomed to failure. Under the Constitution, they agreed not to set up such barriers. American industry, commerce and economic expansion rocked.
I am an original textualist. I do not believe that the Constitution is an "evolving tapestry" or any such nonsene. The constitution is written in plain english and means what it says. If there is any doubt, the authors explained it fully in the Federalist Papers and personal letters.
As a matter of fact, I consider myself more a Nebraskan than an American, though the extent to which I tie some massive violent bureaucracy to my personal identity is minimal. I hate the 50-star flag. It doesn't stand for things I like. I prefer instead the Gadsden flag, the First Naval Jack, the 13-star flag, or even the flag of the CSA.
The founding fathers knew that individual sovereignty was more important than, the precursor to, and progenitor of, state sovereignty("...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...")
George Washington was a nationalist; in his farewell address he constantly expressed that we should all consider ourselves citizens of "America" even though American citizenship wasn't actually established until the 14th amendment. George Washington was wrong.
He may have been one of the founding fathers, but he wasn't one of the "idea men," one of the intellectual fathers of the constitution like Madison and Jefferson were. These men inherited from the intellectual tradition of Locke. Washington did not. The fact is, there was no such thing as American citizenship until the 14th amendment. The tests for citizenship for serving in congress in the constitution refer to being a citizen of some state.
The way our founding fathers intended it, you were only a citizen of a state, a mini-country that had entered into a special agreement with other mini-countries like it nearby. The declaration of independence declared that
" these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."
In 1783 King George recognized the sovereignty of the states in the Paris peace treaty as well.
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
The constitution was an agreement among the states, a bunch of ex-colonial mini-countries, that interstate commerce would be regulated from the national level only. The states did not have power to set up trade barriers against other states with which to enrich themselves:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.---US Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 2
The states even agreed to a common currency, as the EU has done now.
My Point? The USA was the first experiment in an extreme laissez faire approach to international trade. It was an astounding success Read those last two sentences over a few times until they sinks in. Your assertion that we didn't get to be the leaders of the free world with my kind of attitude is dead wrong. It is my kind of attitude that made us the leaders of the free world. The idea that the state should manage economics for the benefit of the people was taken to an extreme and attempted in the USSR. It failed dramatically. The people are perfectly capable of deciding what's best for themselves.
And the attitude wasn't just limited to cross-state trade, either. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote "I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishm
As a matter of fact, I consider myself more a Nebraskan than an American, though the extent to which I tie some massive violent bureaucracy to my personal identity is minimal. I hate the 50-star flag. It doesn't stand for things I like. I prefer instead the Gadsden flag, the First Naval Jack, the 13-star flag, or even the flag of the CSA.
The founding fathers knew that individual sovereignty was more important than, the precursor to, and progenitor of, state sovereignty("...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...")
George Washington was a nationalist; in his farewell address he constantly expressed that we should all consider ourselves citizens of "America" even though American citizenship wasn't actually established until the 14th amendment. George Washington was wrong.
He may have been one of the founding fathers, but he wasn't one of the "idea men," one of the intellectual fathers of the constitution like Madison and Jefferson were. These men inherited from the intellectual tradition of Locke. Washington did not. The fact is, there was no such thing as American citizenship until the 14th amendment. The tests for citizenship for serving in congress in the constitution refer to being a citizen of some state.
The way our founding fathers intended it, you were only a citizen of a state, a mini-country that had entered into a special agreement with other mini-countries like it nearby. The declaration of independence declared that
" these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."
In 1783 King George recognized the sovereignty of the states in the Paris peace treaty as well.
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
The constitution was an agreement among the states, a bunch of ex-colonial mini-countries, that interstate commerce would be regulated from the national level only. The states did not have power to set up trade barriers against other states with which to enrich themselves:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.---US Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 2
The states even agreed to a common currency, as the EU has done now.
My Point? The USA was the first experiment in an extreme laissez faire approach to international trade. It was an astounding success Read those last two sentences over a few times until they sinks in. Your assertion that we didn't get to be the leaders of the free world with my kind of attitude is dead wrong. It is my kind of attitude that made us the leaders of the free world. The idea that the state should manage economics for the benefit of the people was taken to an extreme and attempted in the USSR. It failed dramatically. The people are perfectly capable of deciding what's best for themselves.
And the attitude wasn't just limited to cross-state trade, either. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote "I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment.", to Gideon Granger in 1800 he wrote "Let our affairs be disentangled from th
As a matter of fact, I consider myself more a Nebraskan than an American, though the extent to which I tie some massive violent bureaucracy to my personal identity is minimal. The founding fathers knew that individual sovereignty was more important than, and a precursor to, state sovereignty("...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...")
George Washington was a nationalist; in his farewell address he constantly expressed that we should all consider ourselves citizens of "America" even though American citizenship wasn't actually established until the 14th amendment. George Washington was wrong. He may have been one of the founding fathers, but he wasn't one of the "idea men," one of the fathers of the constitution like Madison and Jefferson were. These men inherited from the intellectual tradition of Locke. Washington did not. The fact is, there was no such thing as American citizenship until the 14th amendment. The tests for citizenship for serving in congress in the constitution refer to being a citizen of some state. The way our founding fathers intended it, you were only a citizen of a state, a mini-country that had entered into a special agreement with other mini-countries like it nearby. The declaration of independence declared that
" these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States."
In 1783 King George recognized the sovereignty of the states in the Paris peace treaty as well.
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Altruism is sacrificing the self for the good of others. What you advocate is sacrificing others for the good of the self. You concluded because I did not agree with you, then I must be an altruist. The two are opposites, but there is a third possibility, which is what I advocate. I advocate the complete seperation of economics and state.
Governments
If a job goes to another country, it's because the employer can get more bang for their buck there. It's the free market, not a contest. Would "whatever it takes" include imposing economic sanctions or preventing foreigners from studying at our universities? What makes our country more important than others? I don't think an American or a Mexican or an Indian is more or less deserving of a job based on their nationality.
I am a huge fan of globalization. It's strange to me how the American right and left both hate globalization so much. Leftists like Chomsky and Singer hate it because they think it hurts foreigners(It doesn't.) Conservatives like Pat Buchanan think it hurts the US. It does in the short run, but not in the long run. Programming jobs may go to India at first, but as US firms compete more and more for programmers, the incentive becomes less and less to hire an Indian programmer.
He said he keeps a copy of the backup dvd's offsite.
Re:What's wrong with freezing a drive?
on
Creative Data Loss
·
· Score: 1
Heat related timing problem? What do you mean?
I actually did have a cd player once that could be coaxed into playing after a trip to the freezer, and I did this twice. Couldn't get it to play when thawed at all, but cold it did. I would say it's worth a try, if a peice of hardware is dead anyway.
That's pretty clever man. Do you know of any resources on the web that have more info about manually recovering data and reconstructing parition tables? If not, maybe you should make one for me....
Re:What's wrong with freezing a drive?
on
Creative Data Loss
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
it'll help a dead drive work, if there's some problem with the controller board where maybe contraction from cold will cause some broken microscopic trace to conduct again, but it won't help you recover data you *deleted* as the guy in the blurb did.
Gaim does it, and GNU hippies made that thing. I'll be chatting in Soulseek or something and the somebody IM's me in gaim and suddenly I'm typing to them.
There were LONG segments of both. A woman named Lipscomb in the US, and an unidentified woman in Iraq. Both were heartwrenching. The point about whether or not the sons deserved to die wasn't the point. THe point was for the audience to actually be confronted by the grief of war.
If you uninstall IE, you don't really remove it from your computer. If you pull up windows explorer and type a url in the location bar, whoops, it's IE. Windows explorer == Internet Explorer.
Must be pretty small/lame programs, and it's not necessarily an issue of hating you, just teaching you a lesson.
Your parents didn't discipline you when you were a kid because they hated you, they did it because they wanted to change your behavior. Blank passwords are definitely an activity that should be discouraged.
What if someone used your account as a starting point and tried to escalate their user rights, or uses your account to launch a fork-bomb and bring the system to it's knees while people who(unlike you), do care about their work are trying to get something done, maybe before the end of a term?
That's pretty stupid dude. You think the only reason somebody would want in to your home directory would be to steal your code? There are plenty of people that would log in as you and do a "rm -rf ~" just to teach you a lesson about the importance of having a password.
Actually, it sounds like one of the new things MS did in sp2 is that it now takes advantage of the NX processor protection feature in AMD and intel chips
Data execution prevention (DEP) marks all memory locations in a process as non-executable unless the location explicitly contains executable code. There is a class of attacks that attempt to insert and execute code from non-executable memory locations. Data execution prevention helps prevent these attacks by intercepting them and raising an exception.
Data execution prevention relies on processor hardware to mark memory with an attribute that indicates that code should not be executed from that memory. Data execution prevention functions on a per-virtual memory page basis, most often changing a bit in the page table entry (PTE) to mark the memory page.
The actual hardware implementation of DEP and marking of the virtual memory page varies by processor architecture. However, processors that support data execution prevention are capable of raising an exception when code is executed from a page marked with the appropriate attribute set.
Both Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) have defined and shipped Windows-compatible architectures for data execution prevention. Windows supports DEP on the AMD64 platform and Intel Itanium Processor Family (IPF) processors.
The 32-bit version of Windows (beginning with Windows XP Service Pack 2) utilizes the no-execute page-protection (NX) processor feature as defined by AMD. In order to use the NX processor feature, the processor must be running in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode. The 64-bit versions of Windows uses the NX processor feature on 64-bit extensions and certain values of the access rights page table entry (PTE) field on IPF processors.
It is hoped that future 32-bit and 64-bit processors will provide data execution prevention. Microsoft is addressing possible compatibility issues with existing applications and drivers while working with processor vendors to encourage the adoption and development of DEP technologies.
What unix/linux "execute" flag do you mean? Are you talking about this? It seems to say that it works around a limitation of the x86 architecture, and while I think this is pretty clever, I think it makes more sense to do it with hardware protections instead of the workaround.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
The states are and were FULLY autonomous states under both the articles and the constitution. They voluntarily agreed to first a weak, and then a stronger compact that provides for their common defense and a super-free-trade zone.
The CSA was completely in the right in their leaving the USA and forming a new government, from a constitutional law standpoint.
However, once it became a new nation, the States of the USA were completely justified in declaring war on the CSA states from a Natural Law perspective. Anyone has the Natural Right to stop murder, rape or physical enslavement. John Brown is one of my personal heros. He didn't wait for government authority to try to end slavery. He just gathered men and seized a government armory.
People can act against governments that allow murder, rape or physical enslavement and so can States, as States are merely confederations of sovereign individuals.
The reason why the articles failed was because the states did not agree to give the national government the power to collect taxes from the states and disallow barriers to inter-state trade. Without power to tax there was no way to pay back war debts.
I really don't see why you would think I favor the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution when I was advocating the super-free-trade scenario that only came when the Constitution was created. Before the Constitution, States had their own currencies and set up inter-state tarrifs. Under the Articles of Confederation, States set up harmfull protectionist policies. This was why it was doomed to failure. Under the Constitution, they agreed not to set up such barriers. American industry, commerce and economic expansion rocked.
I am an original textualist. I do not believe that the Constitution is an "evolving tapestry" or any such nonsene. The constitution is written in plain english and means what it says. If there is any doubt, the authors explained it fully in the Federalist Papers and personal letters.
The founding fathers knew that individual sovereignty was more important than, the precursor to, and progenitor of, state sovereignty("...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...")
George Washington was a nationalist; in his farewell address he constantly expressed that we should all consider ourselves citizens of "America" even though American citizenship wasn't actually established until the 14th amendment. George Washington was wrong.
He may have been one of the founding fathers, but he wasn't one of the "idea men," one of the intellectual fathers of the constitution like Madison and Jefferson were. These men inherited from the intellectual tradition of Locke. Washington did not. The fact is, there was no such thing as American citizenship until the 14th amendment. The tests for citizenship for serving in congress in the constitution refer to being a citizen of some state.
The way our founding fathers intended it, you were only a citizen of a state, a mini-country that had entered into a special agreement with other mini-countries like it nearby. The declaration of independence declared that
In 1783 King George recognized the sovereignty of the states in the Paris peace treaty as well.
The constitution was an agreement among the states, a bunch of ex-colonial mini-countries, that interstate commerce would be regulated from the national level only. The states did not have power to set up trade barriers against other states with which to enrich themselves:
The states even agreed to a common currency, as the EU has done now.
My Point? The USA was the first experiment in an extreme laissez faire approach to international trade. It was an astounding success Read those last two sentences over a few times until they sinks in. Your assertion that we didn't get to be the leaders of the free world with my kind of attitude is dead wrong. It is my kind of attitude that made us the leaders of the free world. The idea that the state should manage economics for the benefit of the people was taken to an extreme and attempted in the USSR. It failed dramatically. The people are perfectly capable of deciding what's best for themselves.
And the attitude wasn't just limited to cross-state trade, either. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote "I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishm
In 1783 King George recognized the sovereignty of the states in the Paris peace treaty as well.
The constitution was an agreement among the states, a bunch of ex-colonial mini-countries, that interstate commerce would be regulated from the national level only. The states did not have power to set up trade barriers against other states with which to enrich themselves:
The states even agreed to a common currency, as the EU has done now. My Point? The USA was the first experiment in an extreme laissez faire approach to international trade. It was an astounding success Read those last two sentences over a few times until they sinks in. Your assertion that we didn't get to be the leaders of the free world with my kind of attitude is dead wrong. It is my kind of attitude that made us the leaders of the free world. The idea that the state should manage economics for the benefit of the people was taken to an extreme and attempted in the USSR. It failed dramatically. The people are perfectly capable of deciding what's best for themselves. And the attitude wasn't just limited to cross-state trade, either. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote "I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment.", to Gideon Granger in 1800 he wrote "Let our affairs be disentangled from th
If a job goes to another country, it's because the employer can get more bang for their buck there. It's the free market, not a contest. Would "whatever it takes" include imposing economic sanctions or preventing foreigners from studying at our universities? What makes our country more important than others? I don't think an American or a Mexican or an Indian is more or less deserving of a job based on their nationality.
I am a huge fan of globalization. It's strange to me how the American right and left both hate globalization so much. Leftists like Chomsky and Singer hate it because they think it hurts foreigners(It doesn't.) Conservatives like Pat Buchanan think it hurts the US. It does in the short run, but not in the long run. Programming jobs may go to India at first, but as US firms compete more and more for programmers, the incentive becomes less and less to hire an Indian programmer.
And if god didn't smite us and confound our universal communication system(the internet) for building a tower into the heavens.
Just like the thing described....
He said he keeps a copy of the backup dvd's offsite.
Heat related timing problem? What do you mean? I actually did have a cd player once that could be coaxed into playing after a trip to the freezer, and I did this twice. Couldn't get it to play when thawed at all, but cold it did. I would say it's worth a try, if a peice of hardware is dead anyway.
That's pretty clever man. Do you know of any resources on the web that have more info about manually recovering data and reconstructing parition tables? If not, maybe you should make one for me....
it'll help a dead drive work, if there's some problem with the controller board where maybe contraction from cold will cause some broken microscopic trace to conduct again, but it won't help you recover data you *deleted* as the guy in the blurb did.
Build a carbon arc lamp, fool!
Talk about heat dispersal though....
linkage
What about porn? I can look at porn in windows.
Great bands....like U2?
What if Steve Jobs or someone else external wanted to email him?
Gaim does it, and GNU hippies made that thing. I'll be chatting in Soulseek or something and the somebody IM's me in gaim and suddenly I'm typing to them.
There were LONG segments of both. A woman named Lipscomb in the US, and an unidentified woman in Iraq. Both were heartwrenching. The point about whether or not the sons deserved to die wasn't the point. THe point was for the audience to actually be confronted by the grief of war.
When you start to think that the government itself has rights, you need to go back and read John Locke's "Treatise on Civil Government" again, bud.
If you uninstall IE, you don't really remove it from your computer. If you pull up windows explorer and type a url in the location bar, whoops, it's IE. Windows explorer == Internet Explorer.
Congratulations! You've just argued a fallacy!
See "Slippery Slope Fallacy" in the list of Fallacious Arguments
Must be pretty small/lame programs, and it's not necessarily an issue of hating you, just teaching you a lesson.
Your parents didn't discipline you when you were a kid because they hated you, they did it because they wanted to change your behavior. Blank passwords are definitely an activity that should be discouraged.
What if someone used your account as a starting point and tried to escalate their user rights, or uses your account to launch a fork-bomb and bring the system to it's knees while people who(unlike you), do care about their work are trying to get something done, maybe before the end of a term?
That's pretty stupid dude. You think the only reason somebody would want in to your home directory would be to steal your code? There are plenty of people that would log in as you and do a "rm -rf ~" just to teach you a lesson about the importance of having a password.
That was almost as clever as saying "open sores" instead of "open source" or spelling microsoft with a $.
What unix/linux "execute" flag do you mean? Are you talking about this?
It seems to say that it works around a limitation of the x86 architecture, and while I think this is pretty clever, I think it makes more sense to do it with hardware protections instead of the workaround.
Read more about changes in SP2 here
Especially note that it gives IE pop-up blocking turned on by default!