The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(For those of you following along, this is the first clause in Article I Section 8.)
I think you might have a parsing error here. This clause states that Congress has the right to gather money that it can then spend on defense and welfare. This is about taxation, and spending, and has nothing to do with any right of travel.
The keys to parsing this clause are capitalization, and punctuation:
The Congress shall have Power To -- Tells us we're describing a congressional power.
lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, -- Tells us what the power is.
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; -- Tells us what the purpose of this power is, what the justification is for granting Congress this power. We know this is *not* a congressional power itself because the "to" is lower case. Note too the ending semicolon -- this tells us that we are at the end of the initial description.
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; -- This modifies the initial description, and tells us that any such taxes, etc. levied by the Congress (i.e. any federal tax, duty, etc.) must be the same for all states. This was probably more of an issue around the time of Constitutional ratification, due to each state considering itself to be much more independent, and wanting no favoritism from the federal government towards any other state.
Hope this helps. If there is some other clause in the Constitution that I've missed that more clearly covers travel, please post it. Article I Section 8 however does not fit the bill.
(maybe creativity thrives even more when protected?)
Trite, but true -- Necessity is the mother of all invention.
So I would argue that protection is not conducive to creativity, and instead very likely has the effect of inhibiting creativity by removing most motivation to do the work to implement creative ideas.
The constitution certainly doesn't guarantee your right to fly. Or even drive.
The Constitution doesn't state that the federal US government has any authority to arbitrarily (i.e. without proper due process, warrants, etc.) prevent the populace from traveling by any mode they so desire. Moreover, case law backs this up (Shapiro vs. Thompson, United States v. Guest, likely numerous others as well). Ergo, the TSA is a gross violation of foundational US law, never mind any ethical or moral arguments.
QED.
It's poignantly sad to me quite how many people in the US labor under the dangerous misapprehension that the Constitution lists the rights the people have, when in point of fact the Constitution lists the rights the government has, leaving everything else not explicitly mentioned up to the people and the states. You'd think such folks had never actually read the foundational document of US law. It's not even that long. To quote:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yeah, this is how that "vigorous" debate will go...
SENATOR ASSHAT: So, it seems the Afghan situation is far more complex than it initially seemed...
SENATOR LIEBERMAN: TERRORISM!
SENATOR STUPID: Right then, it's all settled. I'm off to lunch.
So, it's one guy debating himself? Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but that all sounds like the same guy (Asshat / Lieberman / Stupid)...
It's more the Red Prada and the Blue Prada, though, at least as far as how often I hear talk of "consumers". Make them want something no one needs, and then lead them by the nose using the very aspirations you've indoctrinated them with.
who would put medicine they bought from a spam email into their body?
The same people who would put illegal drugs from a stranger on a street corner in their body.
I don't have any street corners in my body, so I guess that's not a concern.
Even a novice would be able to work out what it means.
Seriously, you're thinking like a geek. Mind you, I don't mean that in a bad way. But I do mean that someone with your perspective is not someone who would most likely be disadvantaged by someone else hiding the URL bar, as you'd be wary and experienced enough to notice, and wonder what was up.
Why should they have to maintain a separate build just for the sake of not having a single checkbox in the configuration options? Surely not to save space, because it wouldn't take much code to check a setting before adding the address and status lines.
Redjag suggested that the option might be useful for appliance purposes. My reply about separate builds was precisely for this context -- so far the only useful and non-devious one mentioned for hiding the URL bar -- and in the context of an appliance installation, a separate build that saves space would indeed be very much desired. And by saving space, I'm referring to much more than just code to check a setting before adding the address and status lines: an appliance build, with space-savings in mind, would be much more bare-bones -- no need for extensions, no need for bookmarks, possibly even no need for JavaScript.
Is there any utility for end users of a full-on desktop browser installation for an option to hide the URL bar? I see plenty of utility for others -- megacorps, phishers, and assorted other ne'er-do-wells -- but I can think of no compelling use for regular old end users.
Wouldn't a separate build be more appropriate in such a case? Much of the functionality in a full-on desktop install of a browser would only eat up valuable space in an appliance environment.
Then again, this is Microsoft, who seem to think that Windows is great on appliance machines...
I never understood why MS ever thought it would be useful -- for the end user -- to hide the URL bar. The *only* use cases I can think of are devious and unhelpful to the end user.
And thanks for about:config, but that comes as no news. It also bears mentioning that Firefox doesn't actually have options for "everything" per se -- I cannot find any option to hide the URL bar, for instance, but maybe I'm just not seeing it.
If fascism is what we call the government taking over the corporations, what do we call the corporations taking over the government? Msicsaf? (Technically, it's an extreme form of regulatory capture, but that phrase lacks a certain zing...)
It's been a while so I don't remember very clearly, but what I recall is that sleeping wouldn't work, keymaps were wonky (umlauts, ogoneks, macrons, accents, etc for German, Navajo, Mâori, and Spanish, among others), and I couldn't get Scim to work (I use Japanese a lot, and Chinese and Korean to a lesser extent). After a fresh install, things worked better. I'm happy to grant that I'm a bit of a corner case, but there you have it.:)
I last tried an in-place upgrade around July 2009 for Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04, and had all kinds of "fun".
Generally speaking, though, I've found that at least some systemwide config options generally change from version to version, so redoing systemwide config provides me a good opportunity to familiarize myself with the new options and make sure everything is just as I want it. Sometimes newer versions offer options that I'd like to use one way or the other, so redoing the whole configuration process ensures that I'm familiar with what's new and different.
Last in-place upgrade I tried was 8.10 to 9.04 (done around July 2009), and that didn't go too well for me. Admittedly it's been a while, but the pain involved was enough to prompt me to go back to fresh-partition-installs. If things are working better now, I'm happy to hear it.
So as far as I can tell, Righthaven has no legitimate reason to exist--and I'd be very happy if it and all other similar companies that exist only to parasitize others' work were dissolved.
The problem is that if you wait six months between upgrades then that means you spend 12 hours downloading and installing hundreds of megabytes of changes and then it crashes part-way through and your system is hosed.
It sounds an awful lot like you're installing new versions as in-place "upgrades". I've never had that work successfully, starting from RH 6.something or so around 1999. Your much better bet is to download the ISO, then install the new version in a fresh partition. Mount all your data like normal (you do have your data on a separate partition, no?), then give the new version a spin. If it hoses something, you've still got your old version on its own partition, and switching back is as easy as rebooting.
Keeping things in separate partitions and mounting as appropriate is one of the key advantages (for me, anyway) of Unix-style filesystems. An example partition list:
20GB partition - OS 1
20GB partition - OS 2
20GB partition - OS 3
20GB partition - OS 4
160GB partition - data
Leftovers - swap, etc.
Create and use more or fewer OS partitions as you find useful. I have Windows XP on one (not used on the bare metal since shortly after buying the computer), Ubuntu 9.10 in the next (thinking about wiping this and replacing with 10.10), 10.04 in the third, and I keep the fourth around to play -- check out Fedora, Arch, Mandriva (when they were still viable), etc. In each OS, I just mount my data partition as appropriate -- generally just as/data, and then symlinked from the appropriate/home/[username]/data locations. (You could just keep all/home/[username] directories in your data partition, but I tend to find that this causes config file conflicts, so I just keep the equivalent of "My Documents" in the data partition.)
This way, "upgrading" is as simple as a full install in a fresh partition. This completely avoids the problem you (and I and many others) have run into: wasting time downloading and installing hundreds of megabytes of changes and then it crashes part-way through and your system is hosed.Install after a clean wipe -- avoid that "not quite fresh" feeling!
Seriously folks, how is my previous comment here off-topic? Executive malfeasance is a large part of what has made "cyberwar" possible. But for cutting corners, many of the glaringly large holes in the US national infrastructure vis-à-vis the internet would not exist.
What I'd like to suggest to every cheap-ass corporate exec that is counting on the government instead of internal IT staff to protect their networks, is to listen to how stupid that sounds.
It's only stupid if the execs in question are actually responsible, and held responsible, for failing to do proper due diligence. However, as corporate behaviour in the US has consistently shown for some time now, execs are routinely let off essentially scot-free, even in the case of obviously willful and malicious profit-seeking at the expense of the company and even market -- just have a look at Enron a few years ago, or Wall Street today.
Meanwhile, if execs can save a few bucks by essentially outsourcing network security to the Feds, and pocket the savings themselves in the form of bonuses or other compensation perquisites, then, in the ethical vacuum of US board rooms, they'd have to be mad to do otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
If you drop the "f" from the title, Darsteller is a valid German word, basically meaning "actor" -- see http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Darsteller.
Tschüß,
Hello kwerle --
In your previous post here, you quote more:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(For those of you following along, this is the first clause in Article I Section 8.)
I think you might have a parsing error here. This clause states that Congress has the right to gather money that it can then spend on defense and welfare. This is about taxation, and spending, and has nothing to do with any right of travel.
The keys to parsing this clause are capitalization, and punctuation:
-- Tells us we're describing a congressional power.
-- Tells us what the power is.
-- Tells us what the purpose of this power is, what the justification is for granting Congress this power. We know this is *not* a congressional power itself because the "to" is lower case.
Note too the ending semicolon -- this tells us that we are at the end of the initial description.
-- This modifies the initial description, and tells us that any such taxes, etc. levied by the Congress (i.e. any federal tax, duty, etc.) must be the same for all states. This was probably more of an issue around the time of Constitutional ratification, due to each state considering itself to be much more independent, and wanting no favoritism from the federal government towards any other state.
Hope this helps. If there is some other clause in the Constitution that I've missed that more clearly covers travel, please post it. Article I Section 8 however does not fit the bill.
Cheers,
(maybe creativity thrives even more when protected?)
Trite, but true -- Necessity is the mother of all invention.
So I would argue that protection is not conducive to creativity, and instead very likely has the effect of inhibiting creativity by removing most motivation to do the work to implement creative ideas.
Just my 2p.
Cheers,
Kwerle mentions:
The constitution certainly doesn't guarantee your right to fly. Or even drive.
The Constitution doesn't state that the federal US government has any authority to arbitrarily (i.e. without proper due process, warrants, etc.) prevent the populace from traveling by any mode they so desire. Moreover, case law backs this up (Shapiro vs. Thompson, United States v. Guest , likely numerous others as well). Ergo, the TSA is a gross violation of foundational US law, never mind any ethical or moral arguments.
QED.
It's poignantly sad to me quite how many people in the US labor under the dangerous misapprehension that the Constitution lists the rights the people have, when in point of fact the Constitution lists the rights the government has, leaving everything else not explicitly mentioned up to the people and the states. You'd think such folks had never actually read the foundational document of US law. It's not even that long. To quote:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Cheers,
Yeah, this is how that "vigorous" debate will go...
SENATOR ASSHAT: So, it seems the Afghan situation is far more complex than it initially seemed...
SENATOR LIEBERMAN: TERRORISM!
SENATOR STUPID: Right then, it's all settled. I'm off to lunch.
So, it's one guy debating himself? Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but that all sounds like the same guy (Asshat / Lieberman / Stupid)...
Cheers,
Have you read a snigle history book?
No, but I have read a sniglet book.
[ducks]
It's more the Red Prada and the Blue Prada, though, at least as far as how often I hear talk of "consumers". Make them want something no one needs, and then lead them by the nose using the very aspirations you've indoctrinated them with.
Meh.
So he's Finnished being Norwegian and decided to Sweden the pot by standing in as the new Swedish Chef? I'd love to see that Muppets episode!
Bork Bork Bork!
Cheers,
who would put medicine they bought from a spam email into their body? The same people who would put illegal drugs from a stranger on a street corner in their body.
I don't have any street corners in my body, so I guess that's not a concern.
Cheers,
Even a novice would be able to work out what it means.
Seriously, you're thinking like a geek. Mind you, I don't mean that in a bad way. But I do mean that someone with your perspective is not someone who would most likely be disadvantaged by someone else hiding the URL bar, as you'd be wary and experienced enough to notice, and wonder what was up.
Why should they have to maintain a separate build just for the sake of not having a single checkbox in the configuration options? Surely not to save space, because it wouldn't take much code to check a setting before adding the address and status lines.
Redjag suggested that the option might be useful for appliance purposes. My reply about separate builds was precisely for this context -- so far the only useful and non-devious one mentioned for hiding the URL bar -- and in the context of an appliance installation, a separate build that saves space would indeed be very much desired. And by saving space, I'm referring to much more than just code to check a setting before adding the address and status lines: an appliance build, with space-savings in mind, would be much more bare-bones -- no need for extensions, no need for bookmarks, possibly even no need for JavaScript.
Is there any utility for end users of a full-on desktop browser installation for an option to hide the URL bar? I see plenty of utility for others -- megacorps, phishers, and assorted other ne'er-do-wells -- but I can think of no compelling use for regular old end users.
Cheers,
Wouldn't a separate build be more appropriate in such a case? Much of the functionality in a full-on desktop install of a browser would only eat up valuable space in an appliance environment.
Then again, this is Microsoft, who seem to think that Windows is great on appliance machines...
Cheers,
I never understood why MS ever thought it would be useful -- for the end user -- to hide the URL bar. The *only* use cases I can think of are devious and unhelpful to the end user.
And thanks for about:config, but that comes as no news. It also bears mentioning that Firefox doesn't actually have options for "everything" per se -- I cannot find any option to hide the URL bar, for instance, but maybe I'm just not seeing it.
Cheers,
One of the security options in IE is "Allow websites to open windows without address or status bars" and it is disabled by default.
The fact that this even exists as an option is ... interesting, shall we say.
Cheers,
If fascism is what we call the government taking over the corporations, what do we call the corporations taking over the government? Msicsaf ? (Technically, it's an extreme form of regulatory capture, but that phrase lacks a certain zing...)
Cheers,
It's been a while so I don't remember very clearly, but what I recall is that sleeping wouldn't work, keymaps were wonky (umlauts, ogoneks, macrons, accents, etc for German, Navajo, Mâori, and Spanish, among others), and I couldn't get Scim to work (I use Japanese a lot, and Chinese and Korean to a lesser extent). After a fresh install, things worked better. I'm happy to grant that I'm a bit of a corner case, but there you have it. :)
Cheers,
Hope it came in handy.
Cheers,
I last tried an in-place upgrade around July 2009 for Ubuntu 8.10 to 9.04, and had all kinds of "fun".
Generally speaking, though, I've found that at least some systemwide config options generally change from version to version, so redoing systemwide config provides me a good opportunity to familiarize myself with the new options and make sure everything is just as I want it. Sometimes newer versions offer options that I'd like to use one way or the other, so redoing the whole configuration process ensures that I'm familiar with what's new and different.
But maybe that's just me. :)
Cheers,
Last in-place upgrade I tried was 8.10 to 9.04 (done around July 2009), and that didn't go too well for me. Admittedly it's been a while, but the pain involved was enough to prompt me to go back to fresh-partition-installs. If things are working better now, I'm happy to hear it.
Cheers,
So as far as I can tell, Righthaven has no legitimate reason to exist--and I'd be very happy if it and all other similar companies that exist only to parasitize others' work were dissolved.
Preferably using a strong acid.
(Only partly joking.)
Cheers,
May I present, for your amusement and elucidation:
The "F" Word
Enjoy!
The problem is that if you wait six months between upgrades then that means you spend 12 hours downloading and installing hundreds of megabytes of changes and then it crashes part-way through and your system is hosed.
It sounds an awful lot like you're installing new versions as in-place "upgrades". I've never had that work successfully, starting from RH 6.something or so around 1999. Your much better bet is to download the ISO, then install the new version in a fresh partition. Mount all your data like normal (you do have your data on a separate partition, no?), then give the new version a spin. If it hoses something, you've still got your old version on its own partition, and switching back is as easy as rebooting.
Keeping things in separate partitions and mounting as appropriate is one of the key advantages (for me, anyway) of Unix-style filesystems. An example partition list:
Create and use more or fewer OS partitions as you find useful. I have Windows XP on one (not used on the bare metal since shortly after buying the computer), Ubuntu 9.10 in the next (thinking about wiping this and replacing with 10.10), 10.04 in the third, and I keep the fourth around to play -- check out Fedora, Arch, Mandriva (when they were still viable), etc. In each OS, I just mount my data partition as appropriate -- generally just as /data, and then symlinked from the appropriate /home/[username]/data locations. (You could just keep all /home/[username] directories in your data partition, but I tend to find that this causes config file conflicts, so I just keep the equivalent of "My Documents" in the data partition.)
This way, "upgrading" is as simple as a full install in a fresh partition. This completely avoids the problem you (and I and many others) have run into: wasting time downloading and installing hundreds of megabytes of changes and then it crashes part-way through and your system is hosed. Install after a clean wipe -- avoid that "not quite fresh" feeling!
Cheers,
Seriously folks, how is my previous comment here off-topic? Executive malfeasance is a large part of what has made "cyberwar" possible. But for cutting corners, many of the glaringly large holes in the US national infrastructure vis-à-vis the internet would not exist.
Cheers,
What I'd like to suggest to every cheap-ass corporate exec that is counting on the government instead of internal IT staff to protect their networks, is to listen to how stupid that sounds.
It's only stupid if the execs in question are actually responsible, and held responsible, for failing to do proper due diligence. However, as corporate behaviour in the US has consistently shown for some time now, execs are routinely let off essentially scot-free, even in the case of obviously willful and malicious profit-seeking at the expense of the company and even market -- just have a look at Enron a few years ago, or Wall Street today.
Meanwhile, if execs can save a few bucks by essentially outsourcing network security to the Feds, and pocket the savings themselves in the form of bonuses or other compensation perquisites, then, in the ethical vacuum of US board rooms, they'd have to be mad to do otherwise.
Cheers,
to provide 'security', we are restraining and controlling ourselves much more than a foreign occupant would actually do.
And that's much more profitable anyway if we do it ourselves. C.f. Chertoff's gains from his buddies at Rape^Hiscan.
Fed-up-edly,
And, alas, my "on the second point" link was an extension of your joke. Dry humour so seldom finds a truly appreciative audience these days...
Cheers,