Utterly subjective. That you were too 'lazy' to follow the link isn't my problem, since it just amounts to a copy and paste anyway.
I guess you said nothing of importance then.
No one is disputing that the founders created the country. What I am saying is that the effects of the constitution are completely clear, and since the government is bound by the constitution, one can view it through a completely secular mindset.
The personal beliefs of the founders may be notable, but they're irrelevant to the effects of the constitution.
lol.. I'm not sure anyone was ever arguing anything different. The declaration of independence uses terminology that set you off into a knee jerk reaction though. The entire point of it was that the rights are there above any government or society- that's all.
Neither, because in both cases, you're just stating that you have some right. Why not respond to what I said? It is a fact that millions of people throughout history had their rights violated (Rights we currently believe people should have.), and in fact, it was like they didn't exist at all.
What rights? If the right is granted by the government, it disappears when the government takes it away. There is no violation of rights that do not exist at this point. In order for the government to violate your rights by taking one away, the right has to exist above and beyond the government.
Furthermore, even if some god figure granted you rights, what good would it do to say so? Can you prove it? And what would stop someone else from denying it? It's fucking trivial and happened all the time.
I don't know why you are so fixated on God. The term used is creator- the reason for your existence. I hunt therefore I am- therefor certain things are inalienable rights. Is that such a hard concept to follow? Stop fixating on your evangelical atheism and pay attention.
That's how we have a society that recognizes these rights to begin with; people stood up and did something about it. If we were the losers, we very well might not have these rights.
Wrong.. If society gives you the rights, society can take them from you. If the rights exist because you exist, all society can do it violate or infringe upon your rights. Your rights do not disappear, your ability to enjoy them do.
Please give me a logical explanation of how the two differ in cases where you do not even have a system setup that's supposed to guarantee you certain rights, or limit the power of authority figures. It's like those rights don't exist at all, in that case, and in cases where the system is completely broken.
No, not at all. It's like you are bared from enjoying or exercising those rights but the rights are still there when they come from a power higher then government. The fact that someone oppresses you does not mean you do not have the right.
What made America great was its concept of a greatly limited government, which helped guarantee that many rights would be protected.
That's what I just said..lol.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the reason we have rights is because people stood up for their beliefs and won. Where people think the rights came from is 100% irrelevant.
Those beliefs were that certain rights were bestowed by a power greater than government. Those rights still exist when the government tramples on them. Where they came from or the concept of them being superior to the government is entirely relevant.
No.. Fines are punishment for acts against the law. You are afforded due process of the law or your waive that by just paying the fines but it's an option if you don't agree with the fine. Fees are just that too, payment for services rendered or permits or whatever.
Taking private property for public use is more like the cop showing up and insisting on using your home for a stake out against your will. It's like taking your patented drug and manufacturing it for the masses because of some outbreak. It's like giving everyone a copy of your song, America the Beautiful because it sounds patriotic. It's like the government deciding the new freeway will go through your living room.
When the government deprives you of anything you own, they must justly compensate you. The English used to storm a farm and slaughter all the livestock and raid the root cellar to feed it's troops as it marched to wherever they wanted. I believe the original intend was to make sure the people were compensated if the US did anything like that.
It's poor form to link to another post as a response. I won't even bother following it if you were too lazy to at minimum copy and paste what you think applies.
There is a difference between teaching the beliefs of the founding fathers, and teaching those beliefs as fact.
Whether you like it or not, the founders created the country as fact. It is fact that the US was created with the understanding that we have rights supreme to government and society, and the founders use the specific terminology endowed by their creator to express it.
I see you are trying to still weasly your athiest crap into it..lol. Give it a rest. No one is saying God exist or anything, they are saying the country was founded with certain concepts in mind.
You are mistaken. Throughout history, hundreds of millions of people were abused by governments, and to blame secularism or atheism is just ludicrous, especially given the number of people who didn't agree with either of those.
Lol.. You are saying the rights are given by society, the founders say they are endowed from powers above government or society. You tell me which is easier to get rid of.. Nice try pushing your atheism in there again. Why don't you just drop it. You are the one inducing secularism and atheism. Presumably, this is because you have issues and are so hung up on the concept of god that you have to make an ass of yourself in order to ensure no one else ever comes close to it. Endowed by their creator does not necessarily mean God or religion, it means what makes them who they are, not government or society which can take it away. We rebelled a king who thought he controlled those rights, Read the Declaration of independence.
You pretend that acting like you have god-given rights will protect the rights you want to have. It never has, and it never will. Only action and perseverance have any chance of protecting those things.
You really are clueless aren't you. It has nothing to do with protecting the rights, it's where they come from- a power higher then society or government. It's a reason to fight to protect them. If society gives it, then it is just for society to take them. If government gives it, then it is just for government to take it. If something higher than society or government gives it, it is always unjust for society or government to take it.
Let me dumb this down as much as I possible can for you. Your insistence to inject your atheism into it is not only making you miss the forest for the trees, but fall in the river and drown in the process. So suppose you are 7 years old and I, some random stranger on the internet said you were grounded, go to your room. You would laugh at me and ignore everything I said. Now suppose your parents said the same thing, you may laugh, but they have authority over you at that age so refusing to do it will only get you into more trouble. Now suppose I said you cannot have any ice cream and your parent said you could. Suppose I said I will harm you if you left your house to get the ice cream. I can infringe on your right to get ice cream, but your parents still gave you that ability. Now suppose you start acting an ass and they take your ice cream rights away.
Now suppose you had a right to get the ice cream that came from an authority greater than your parents, greater than the government, greater than society at large. Your parents saying you cannot have it doesn't take that right away, they just take your ability away. I do not take your right away, I take your ability away by threatening punishment or harm. You still have that right because it was embedded into your life by powers greater than me or your parents or the government or society- you just cannot exercise that right.
Now I am going to attempt to still keep this dumbed down as much as possible for you, but we need to understand the context in why it is important to distinguish rights above the governme
The supremacy clause in the constitution will require the companies, utilities, and universities to play ball. The state law will have to take a back seat because you cannot violate a law when compelled to comply with a law. Or in other words, if California law made something federal law enforces illegal, then the California law cannot be in force in conflict with the federal law.
I'm told that the warrant-less searches are part of the Patriot act along with NSA letters and installing monitoring equipment or points of access for the NSA is covered by the same and the CALEA legislation- both federal laws.
What this would stop is where the NSA tells deputy Dog that illegal drugs will be in a brown sedan license 12345 heading down interstate 5 between two and four pm and the state pulling them over for a magical failure to use a turn signal claim and find 20 kilos of coke in the glove box. (I know, I'm exaggerating)
It seems to me like he handled it a bit badly. Constitutionally, the federal government is not allowed to take private property for public use without just compensation. That is what they were doing with installing the devices and all.
I would have made a constitutional argument in court that the NSA and Federal government is using my network for public gain therefor I am entitle to just compensation according to the constitution and then lay out the ins and outs of it in the case. Perhaps he still can and claim damages for how it ruined his business in the process.
Sure, why not. If you are so inept at the history and founding of this country as to not understand that, you probably should refrain from attempting to talk about it until you do a cursory examination.
Seriously, the entire concept is that there are inherent rights that are inalienable which society and government can infringe upon but not revoke. These rights are higher than the government or society- they are rights instilled by nature or god or whatever that is above your conscience existence- your creator. They are rights every free man has and desires.
Now I know what you are trying to do here. You are trying to inject your atheism into the mix while ignoring the history. The argument you want to have is over 200 years late and the people you want to have it with are long dead. This is a historical concept where the man is free and society and government are subservient to him unlike in Europe and other parts of the world where the people were subjects of the king or government. It is something expressed and put in place long before you even drew breath and you trying to invoke the argument against it only allows those rights to be taken by government and society at large. It is because of arguments like yours that we are less free.
If US history classes are teaching *anything* about a creator granting rights, something is horribly wrong. Well, I know the education system is bad, but at the very least, they thankfully never mentioned such a thing when I was in school.
You must be a complete imbecile. All US history classes should be teaching about the founding of the US and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is a very important part of that history.
Any history class that teaches US history and fails to cover the Declaration of Independence is a farce. If that was the case when you were in school, your parents tax dollars were wasted and you should sue for the schools making you stupid. Again, this is specifically in our founding documents.
Not all tires have a milage life span estimate and that still wouldn't take into account poorley maintained roads which dominate more porer areas.
Did you know there already is a road use tax built into the price of new tires?
Also, i'm not sure we should take this article for anything to work from. According to wikipedia, there are 1.1 million state and local full time law enforcement. That breaks down to about 5500 or so per cop. Of course not all cops are writing tickets for speeding but i question the 300k figure.
That's still the government verses a person. The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights to all government.
I think you mean well but just don't grasp simple concepts. This all should have been covered in your highschool education. Maybe you should eith finish highschool or get the equivilant education before you end up getting into trouble and finding out how wrong you are.
Yes, congress shal make no laws on theatter is the highest law of the land.
Kiddy porn would be considered a crime or moral terpitude which can stop you from getting legal licenses and participation in parts of society. If someone wrongly accused you of it and one of these licenses was withheld or your business was suffering due to the public going elsewhere, you can blame those people all you want but the root cause would be whoever spread the rumors.
What if this is a military weapon being tested and drifts into Japan on accident (or purpose depending on the depth of the testing).
Of course biological weapons are outlawed so of course it would be secret. The kind of secrete that you would want to develop in an isolated frozen land- away from prying eyes.
Your first mistake and probably the biggest mistake is in thinking the Constitution gives you rights. Nothing in the US constitution gives you rights, you have rights bestowed upon you by your creator and the constitution specifically limits government from taking those rights from you. If you would have paid attention in your US history classes, you would know that instead of inventing whatever you think fits the bill when you decide you need to know something.
With little exception, the US constitution does not in any way dictate to citizens. It is what the government is allowed and specifically not allowed to do.
Everything you whine about, is all about someone ignoring the details and getting part of the contracts fulfilled then deciding they don't want to put up their end. Half of it is already illegal or legally unenforceable too.
lol.. It's not quite that simple. The 13th amendment makes slavery and/or involuntary servitude illegal in the US and jurisdictions the US controls and grants congress the power to enforce it. Theoretically, you can sign yourself away as a slave in a foreign land- if it wasn't for the US government maintaining a claim of jurisdiction over US citizens wherever they go. (granted this jurisdictions is somewhat limited)
On the other hand, the first amendment says congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In this case, it is pretty clear what the intent was. Congress is not to make any laws. It doesn't say that you cannot contract your speech rights away with a third party or that the loss of free speech in any way is prohibited.
Now I know I left the religious freedoms portion off and I did that because it gets ignored quite a bit under the guise of separation of church and state which is no where in the first amendment.
Notice how the charge isn't just spying but spying on US companies for the benefit of chinese companies? That is because several multi-lateral trade agreements have provisions concerning state sponsored industrial espionage. If there is any creditable evidence to show, its possible most of Europe and a lot of other areas will have to sanction them too.
A corupt government run amuck is just that. No patriot act needed. The comment was that patriot act authorized it- not that they are doing illegal things.
This is important because you might as well run around jousting windmills if you are fighting the wrong cause of the problem. Blaming this behavior on the patriot act is like you going out and eating a pasta diner then breaking into someone's house with the parent bitching because you went out to diner. For all the faults there may be with you eating pasta, it misses the big point entirely.
I do not think anyone is disputing that mozilla and the open sourced code they started with was at one time netscape's closed source code. The wrech in you concept is that netscape opensourced the code before giving it to mozilla.
When those facts end up being viewed by you as pathetic bullshit, you need to step back and think for a while. Mozilla had open sourced code from the get go and you simply cannot say otherwise. You can however say that the code they started with was at one time part of a closed source propriatary program but if you skip the part about itgetting open sourced, you would be telling a lie.
You are right, I do forget that history as I'm completely not aware of it. Are you sure you are not thinking of Open Office? As far as I know, the Mozilla corp was created when Netscape thought it was going under and the Mozilla foundation was created when it looked like AOL was going to can Netscape altogether.
Anyways, it still doesn't mean Mozilla started from a close proprietary source. Even when Mozilla was feeding code back to Netscape, it was still open source on the Mozilla end.
Fact that you cannot dispute, the code was open sourced and Mozilla was created. It's simple logic just as 1,2,3 is simple logic. Mozilla never touched closed source and proprietary.
In March 1998, Netscape released most of the code base for its popular Netscape Communicator suite under an open source license. The name of the application developed from this would be Mozilla, coordinated by the newly created Mozilla Organization, at the mozilla.org Web site. Although large parts of the original Communicator code, including the layout engine and front-end related codes, were abandoned shortly thereafter, the Mozilla Organization eventually succeeded in producing a full-featured Internet suite that surpassed Communicator in features, stability and degree of standards compliance.
All Mozilla code has always been open source. The Netscape code it started with had been open sourced before Mozilla even touched it. Netscape and Mozilla are not the same thing.
Get your facts straight before accusing others of not having them straight.
Logic isn't one of your strong points I guess. Mozilla most certainly did not start as a closed source project. A close source company opened the code and created Mozilla which never existed outside of being an internal code name for a project before the code was opened.
You can claim Mozilla had the the ideal of free software specifically because it was created for that purpose. Netscape saw it's demise and created an open source project called Mozilla. This was circa 98 with the specific intent of being an open source version of Netscape. Around 2003, the Mozilla foundation was created to take development and control over from Netscape/AOL when it appeared that AOL was about to pull the plug on it.
Mozilla has never, ever been a proprietary, closed source project unless you are referring to a cade name for code in the Netscape development well before Mozilla was ever a public accessible browser or project. From the inception of what we know as Mozilla today, it has been from the start about open source with an open source product.
This is simple history that you can find anywhere. I suggest you start with wikipedia but you can find it elsewhere also. Some of us are old enough to actually remember it happening and I will tell you right now, you are wrong. The original code for the Mozilla project wasn't even the complete Netscape code either. It was many months after the creation before there was even a usable product because of copyright and other issues with the Netscape code base.
What is your point? Netscape open sourced the code and created the Mozilla project specifically to open source their browser after the company was failing.
It's like you are saying laws against killing people are religious because "thou shalt not murder" was a religious teaching or something and therefor no other relationship can be made with barring killing. The fact of the matter is, Mozilla has always been about open source and was born out of open source even if it's initial code base was closed and proprietary because OSS was the specific intent of it's creation and open sourcing of the original code.
You only shoot someone if your life is in danger. If you purposely only shoot them in the leg, obviously, your life wasn't in danger.
This is a problem. When you legitimize shooting a person for reasons other then stopping them from seriously harming or killing you or someone else, you end up with bullets flying around unnecessarily that can stray and kill and unintended victim.
You don't aim for the leg, you aim to stop the threat and only do it when the threat is to the life or serious bodily harm that could end the life to you or another person. Guns are not toys, they are not batons used to subdue criminals. They are a means to protect life by taking life and need to be taken seriously when used by people we employ for our protection.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you said nothing of importance then.
lol.. I'm not sure anyone was ever arguing anything different. The declaration of independence uses terminology that set you off into a knee jerk reaction though. The entire point of it was that the rights are there above any government or society- that's all.
What rights? If the right is granted by the government, it disappears when the government takes it away. There is no violation of rights that do not exist at this point. In order for the government to violate your rights by taking one away, the right has to exist above and beyond the government.
I don't know why you are so fixated on God. The term used is creator- the reason for your existence. I hunt therefore I am- therefor certain things are inalienable rights. Is that such a hard concept to follow? Stop fixating on your evangelical atheism and pay attention.
Wrong.. If society gives you the rights, society can take them from you. If the rights exist because you exist, all society can do it violate or infringe upon your rights. Your rights do not disappear, your ability to enjoy them do.
No, not at all. It's like you are bared from enjoying or exercising those rights but the rights are still there when they come from a power higher then government. The fact that someone oppresses you does not mean you do not have the right.
That's what I just said..lol.
Those beliefs were that certain rights were bestowed by a power greater than government. Those rights still exist when the government tramples on them. Where they came from or the concept of them being superior to the government is entirely relevant.
No.. Fines are punishment for acts against the law. You are afforded due process of the law or your waive that by just paying the fines but it's an option if you don't agree with the fine. Fees are just that too, payment for services rendered or permits or whatever.
Taking private property for public use is more like the cop showing up and insisting on using your home for a stake out against your will. It's like taking your patented drug and manufacturing it for the masses because of some outbreak. It's like giving everyone a copy of your song, America the Beautiful because it sounds patriotic. It's like the government deciding the new freeway will go through your living room.
When the government deprives you of anything you own, they must justly compensate you. The English used to storm a farm and slaughter all the livestock and raid the root cellar to feed it's troops as it marched to wherever they wanted. I believe the original intend was to make sure the people were compensated if the US did anything like that.
It's poor form to link to another post as a response. I won't even bother following it if you were too lazy to at minimum copy and paste what you think applies.
Whether you like it or not, the founders created the country as fact. It is fact that the US was created with the understanding that we have rights supreme to government and society, and the founders use the specific terminology endowed by their creator to express it.
I see you are trying to still weasly your athiest crap into it..lol. Give it a rest. No one is saying God exist or anything, they are saying the country was founded with certain concepts in mind.
Lol.. You are saying the rights are given by society, the founders say they are endowed from powers above government or society. You tell me which is easier to get rid of.. Nice try pushing your atheism in there again. Why don't you just drop it. You are the one inducing secularism and atheism. Presumably, this is because you have issues and are so hung up on the concept of god that you have to make an ass of yourself in order to ensure no one else ever comes close to it. Endowed by their creator does not necessarily mean God or religion, it means what makes them who they are, not government or society which can take it away. We rebelled a king who thought he controlled those rights, Read the Declaration of independence.
You really are clueless aren't you. It has nothing to do with protecting the rights, it's where they come from- a power higher then society or government. It's a reason to fight to protect them. If society gives it, then it is just for society to take them. If government gives it, then it is just for government to take it. If something higher than society or government gives it, it is always unjust for society or government to take it.
Let me dumb this down as much as I possible can for you. Your insistence to inject your atheism into it is not only making you miss the forest for the trees, but fall in the river and drown in the process. So suppose you are 7 years old and I, some random stranger on the internet said you were grounded, go to your room. You would laugh at me and ignore everything I said. Now suppose your parents said the same thing, you may laugh, but they have authority over you at that age so refusing to do it will only get you into more trouble. Now suppose I said you cannot have any ice cream and your parent said you could. Suppose I said I will harm you if you left your house to get the ice cream. I can infringe on your right to get ice cream, but your parents still gave you that ability. Now suppose you start acting an ass and they take your ice cream rights away.
Now suppose you had a right to get the ice cream that came from an authority greater than your parents, greater than the government, greater than society at large. Your parents saying you cannot have it doesn't take that right away, they just take your ability away. I do not take your right away, I take your ability away by threatening punishment or harm. You still have that right because it was embedded into your life by powers greater than me or your parents or the government or society- you just cannot exercise that right.
Now I am going to attempt to still keep this dumbed down as much as possible for you, but we need to understand the context in why it is important to distinguish rights above the governme
Not quite.
The supremacy clause in the constitution will require the companies, utilities, and universities to play ball. The state law will have to take a back seat because you cannot violate a law when compelled to comply with a law. Or in other words, if California law made something federal law enforces illegal, then the California law cannot be in force in conflict with the federal law.
I'm told that the warrant-less searches are part of the Patriot act along with NSA letters and installing monitoring equipment or points of access for the NSA is covered by the same and the CALEA legislation- both federal laws.
What this would stop is where the NSA tells deputy Dog that illegal drugs will be in a brown sedan license 12345 heading down interstate 5 between two and four pm and the state pulling them over for a magical failure to use a turn signal claim and find 20 kilos of coke in the glove box. (I know, I'm exaggerating)
It seems to me like he handled it a bit badly. Constitutionally, the federal government is not allowed to take private property for public use without just compensation. That is what they were doing with installing the devices and all.
I would have made a constitutional argument in court that the NSA and Federal government is using my network for public gain therefor I am entitle to just compensation according to the constitution and then lay out the ins and outs of it in the case. Perhaps he still can and claim damages for how it ruined his business in the process.
Sure, why not. If you are so inept at the history and founding of this country as to not understand that, you probably should refrain from attempting to talk about it until you do a cursory examination.
Seriously, the entire concept is that there are inherent rights that are inalienable which society and government can infringe upon but not revoke. These rights are higher than the government or society- they are rights instilled by nature or god or whatever that is above your conscience existence- your creator. They are rights every free man has and desires.
Now I know what you are trying to do here. You are trying to inject your atheism into the mix while ignoring the history. The argument you want to have is over 200 years late and the people you want to have it with are long dead. This is a historical concept where the man is free and society and government are subservient to him unlike in Europe and other parts of the world where the people were subjects of the king or government. It is something expressed and put in place long before you even drew breath and you trying to invoke the argument against it only allows those rights to be taken by government and society at large. It is because of arguments like yours that we are less free.
You must be a complete imbecile. All US history classes should be teaching about the founding of the US and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is a very important part of that history.
Any history class that teaches US history and fails to cover the Declaration of Independence is a farce. If that was the case when you were in school, your parents tax dollars were wasted and you should sue for the schools making you stupid. Again, this is specifically in our founding documents.
Not all tires have a milage life span estimate and that still wouldn't take into account poorley maintained roads which dominate more porer areas.
Did you know there already is a road use tax built into the price of new tires?
Also, i'm not sure we should take this article for anything to work from. According to wikipedia, there are 1.1 million state and local full time law enforcement. That breaks down to about 5500 or so per cop. Of course not all cops are writing tickets for speeding but i question the 300k figure.
That's still the government verses a person. The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights to all government.
I think you mean well but just don't grasp simple concepts. This all should have been covered in your highschool education. Maybe you should eith finish highschool or get the equivilant education before you end up getting into trouble and finding out how wrong you are.
Yes, congress shal make no laws on theatter is the highest law of the land.
Kiddy porn would be considered a crime or moral terpitude which can stop you from getting legal licenses and participation in parts of society. If someone wrongly accused you of it and one of these licenses was withheld or your business was suffering due to the public going elsewhere, you can blame those people all you want but the root cause would be whoever spread the rumors.
Show me a satalite that was around back then and I will find you a pick. Wait...
--=-..-=-- There is an artist's rendition for you.
I dunno.. have you seen any large lizards lately?
What if this is a military weapon being tested and drifts into Japan on accident (or purpose depending on the depth of the testing).
Of course biological weapons are outlawed so of course it would be secret. The kind of secrete that you would want to develop in an isolated frozen land- away from prying eyes.
Of course the first amendment should not apply in all cases. BTW, did you ever find that kiddy porn you were looking for the other day?
Oh and BTW, no one thinks you search for kiddy porn. But if the first amendment applied in every situation, they could.
Why don't you put up some references to this supposed judicial interpretation?
I'm sure that you will be able to find quite a bit of it easily from how confident you think you are.
Go ahead, do some research, I'll wait.
Your first mistake and probably the biggest mistake is in thinking the Constitution gives you rights. Nothing in the US constitution gives you rights, you have rights bestowed upon you by your creator and the constitution specifically limits government from taking those rights from you. If you would have paid attention in your US history classes, you would know that instead of inventing whatever you think fits the bill when you decide you need to know something.
With little exception, the US constitution does not in any way dictate to citizens. It is what the government is allowed and specifically not allowed to do.
Everything you whine about, is all about someone ignoring the details and getting part of the contracts fulfilled then deciding they don't want to put up their end. Half of it is already illegal or legally unenforceable too.
lol.. It's not quite that simple. The 13th amendment makes slavery and/or involuntary servitude illegal in the US and jurisdictions the US controls and grants congress the power to enforce it. Theoretically, you can sign yourself away as a slave in a foreign land- if it wasn't for the US government maintaining a claim of jurisdiction over US citizens wherever they go. (granted this jurisdictions is somewhat limited)
On the other hand, the first amendment says congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In this case, it is pretty clear what the intent was. Congress is not to make any laws. It doesn't say that you cannot contract your speech rights away with a third party or that the loss of free speech in any way is prohibited.
Now I know I left the religious freedoms portion off and I did that because it gets ignored quite a bit under the guise of separation of church and state which is no where in the first amendment.
Its probably worse that just the US.
Notice how the charge isn't just spying but spying on US companies for the benefit of chinese companies? That is because several multi-lateral trade agreements have provisions concerning state sponsored industrial espionage. If there is any creditable evidence to show, its possible most of Europe and a lot of other areas will have to sanction them too.
A corupt government run amuck is just that. No patriot act needed. The comment was that patriot act authorized it- not that they are doing illegal things.
This is important because you might as well run around jousting windmills if you are fighting the wrong cause of the problem. Blaming this behavior on the patriot act is like you going out and eating a pasta diner then breaking into someone's house with the parent bitching because you went out to diner. For all the faults there may be with you eating pasta, it misses the big point entirely.
What in the patriot act gives them this power?
I do not think anyone is disputing that mozilla and the open sourced code they started with was at one time netscape's closed source code. The wrech in you concept is that netscape opensourced the code before giving it to mozilla.
When those facts end up being viewed by you as pathetic bullshit, you need to step back and think for a while. Mozilla had open sourced code from the get go and you simply cannot say otherwise. You can however say that the code they started with was at one time part of a closed source propriatary program but if you skip the part about itgetting open sourced, you would be telling a lie.
You are right, I do forget that history as I'm completely not aware of it. Are you sure you are not thinking of Open Office? As far as I know, the Mozilla corp was created when Netscape thought it was going under and the Mozilla foundation was created when it looked like AOL was going to can Netscape altogether.
Anyways, it still doesn't mean Mozilla started from a close proprietary source. Even when Mozilla was feeding code back to Netscape, it was still open source on the Mozilla end.
Fact that you cannot dispute, the code was open sourced and Mozilla was created. It's simple logic just as 1,2,3 is simple logic. Mozilla never touched closed source and proprietary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
All Mozilla code has always been open source. The Netscape code it started with had been open sourced before Mozilla even touched it. Netscape and Mozilla are not the same thing.
Get your facts straight before accusing others of not having them straight.
Logic isn't one of your strong points I guess. Mozilla most certainly did not start as a closed source project. A close source company opened the code and created Mozilla which never existed outside of being an internal code name for a project before the code was opened.
You can claim Mozilla had the the ideal of free software specifically because it was created for that purpose. Netscape saw it's demise and created an open source project called Mozilla. This was circa 98 with the specific intent of being an open source version of Netscape. Around 2003, the Mozilla foundation was created to take development and control over from Netscape/AOL when it appeared that AOL was about to pull the plug on it.
Mozilla has never, ever been a proprietary, closed source project unless you are referring to a cade name for code in the Netscape development well before Mozilla was ever a public accessible browser or project. From the inception of what we know as Mozilla today, it has been from the start about open source with an open source product.
This is simple history that you can find anywhere. I suggest you start with wikipedia but you can find it elsewhere also. Some of us are old enough to actually remember it happening and I will tell you right now, you are wrong. The original code for the Mozilla project wasn't even the complete Netscape code either. It was many months after the creation before there was even a usable product because of copyright and other issues with the Netscape code base.
What is your point? Netscape open sourced the code and created the Mozilla project specifically to open source their browser after the company was failing.
It's like you are saying laws against killing people are religious because "thou shalt not murder" was a religious teaching or something and therefor no other relationship can be made with barring killing. The fact of the matter is, Mozilla has always been about open source and was born out of open source even if it's initial code base was closed and proprietary because OSS was the specific intent of it's creation and open sourcing of the original code.
You only shoot someone if your life is in danger. If you purposely only shoot them in the leg, obviously, your life wasn't in danger.
This is a problem. When you legitimize shooting a person for reasons other then stopping them from seriously harming or killing you or someone else, you end up with bullets flying around unnecessarily that can stray and kill and unintended victim.
You don't aim for the leg, you aim to stop the threat and only do it when the threat is to the life or serious bodily harm that could end the life to you or another person. Guns are not toys, they are not batons used to subdue criminals. They are a means to protect life by taking life and need to be taken seriously when used by people we employ for our protection.