If trusted boot is used to deny people's right to hardware they lawfully purchased I expect to see attacks of both technical and legal natures succeeding against trusted boot.
How is this restricting a person right to purchased hardware. This is no different than car manufactures making cars that only run on gasoline. I mean you can't just run out and put Deisel or Propane in your average car and expect it to work. Yes you can make hardware modifications to the system to allow alternate fuels, but that's essentially the same as what you would have to do to a PC to get it to boot an alternate OS.
I just think you are going over board. Your still have every right to modify your hardware, unless you licensed the hardware but I have not see that happen yet.
By your argument, after the hotel is of a certain age, it should become public, and anyone should be able to use it, for free. What is that, you say? Build another hotel if I want to continue to earn income?
There is nothing to stop the hotel's competitors from making an identical copy of the hotel and giving that away for free. And it doesn't take 50 years before the competitors can do that. Copyright effectively stops that from being possible on copyrighted works.
The fact that copying media is cheaper and easier is no reason that it should have any greater protection, and certainly not infinite protection.
EXCEPT for copyrighted stuff, there are no limits on the amount of time you continue to earn money off your product, as long as people still want it.
This is not entirely true. You can continue to make money off a specific product, by trademarked name, indefinitely. What you can not do is restrict the resale of the already produced items, or the production of a competing, and identical item (once any patents run out). Copyright on the other hand makes competing items, such as an identical book by a different name or slightly different format, illegal. So the reality is that only copyrighted material has an indefinite monopoly (assume they continue to extend copyright as they have).
For example, I could produce a product that is identical to Coca Cola, as long as I name it in a way that does not infringe on trademark, and market it. I could even label it as "same ingredients as coca-cola". There is absolutely nothing stopping you from make a copy of the coke formula and giving it away for free. Look at the nock off perfume industry or generic medicine if you want to see clear examples of this happening. If these companies had the same protection as copyright then there would be no nockoffs, or generics, or really any competition.
Just imagine if Ford's patents never expired and he chose not to license any of them. I guess we would all just have to be driving Fords and only Fords.
Totally annecdotal, and may reflect the parents more than how the child get's it's milk, but in my experience breast fed children are healthier by far, having fewer allergies and fewer childhood illnesses. There are other benefits I have noticed as well, but those could have to do other environmental factors (many, not all, parents that chose formula do so because the mother does not want to be inconvenienced, which does reflect on what kind of mother we are talking about.)
In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb...
The american system does nothing to alleviate this specific issue. We have just as long of emergency wait times, depending on the severity of the illness (a child with a head injury can get in pretty quickly). But in our case, not only do we have long wait lines, we end up with a multi thousand dollar bill when we leave (which may or may not be covered by insurance).
Just to quote the article you linked to: "That’s nearly double the next closest console, the Nintendo Wii, which saw sales of 273,000 units. Sony PlayStation 3 numbers were not available." Gee, yes MS is doing great compared to the Wii, to bad there is no evidence it is outselling the PS3, even in the US since they don't have the PS3 numbers.
What MS is doing is good for customers (though that's not why they're doing it). It sucks when you're forced to wait several extra months to get a game just because the developer was handed a big bag of money by some mega-corp hoping to coerce you into buying their console next time around.
So what you are saying is that it is better for consumers if the producers make less money and delay all versions until they are all complete. With the current exclusive model, publisher get additional funds, and often additional support, which helps them get a product available sooner for at least one platform. Ultimately this also means it will be released sooner for all platforms as there will be additional revenue for resources. Exclusivity rarely means waiting longer than you would have otherwise, but it does often mean that at least one subset of consumers gets the product sooner than they would have otherwise. If you are in that subset then you benefit, if you are not then you neither gain or lose.
The MS approach here is even worse for small developers, as no one is going to be offering them exclusive bonus or technical assistance. The MS approach just means that the small developers must either complete the xbox version first, screwing playstation owners, or delay both versions until they are both complete. Or worse yet, in the developer is only familiar with the Playstation then they can never have their product ported to the XBox, screwing XBox owners, or again delaying both until the Xbox port is complete (ports take time), screwing everyone.
Ever get a strange charge on your phone bill? Ever try to get it reversed?
Yes on both accounts, and never had an issue getting them reversed. Even after admitting that they were legitimate charges but I just didn't feel it was reasonable. My banks have also been fairly decent about this, until recently. I the last year I would say I would much rather dispute a charge with a cell phone provider than a bank.
I have a good relationship with my mobile provider. Been with them for over ten years and never had a problem that was not resolved to my satisfaction. I have had them wipe out hundreds of dollars in legitimate charges simply because I have asked and since I have been a customer for so long. Mind you that will all be for naught if the FTC decides to let my carrier be absorbed into the monstrosity that is AT&T.
These people were not stopped completely from communicating.
The only argument being made is that because the government failed in their attempt to stifle the freedom to assemble (assembly by any means is still assembly, it need not be in the same single physical location) and because they failed they are not responsible for the attempt. I really feel sorry for anyone that supports this view, because it means that it is only a violation once it is successful, but once it is successful, it's too late.
If you are arguing that they did this deliberately to stop free speech (impossible to stop free assembly), than you must also accept that the government is now mandated by the Constitution to keep that specific communication method available to the public.
The issue here is not that a service was interrupted, it is that the service was intentionally interrupted by a government supported official organization for the intended purpose to curtail freedom of association, both assembly and speech. There is no argument that a private (non-governmentally funded) organization has every right to discontinue their services, assuming no governmental pressure. There is no argument that the government should not be able to discontinue or disrupt services as needed, for maintenance or cost reduction. The argument is far simpler than that, and that argument is that the government is in violation of the protected rights of the constitution if they deny citizens access to a service for the purpose of restricting the rights protected by the constitution, expressed or otherwise.
If you are willing to actually address the argument then there may be possibility of continued "logical and rational discourse". But so far you have done nothing but to attempt to ignore the actual argument being presented and drawing false conclusions.
On birthday of mine, a few years back, I decided to go to a bar, and I had the pleasure of sitting next to a sociology grad student. The student I sat next to started talking to me about some project he had to do where he had to design a game that encompassed a sociological theme. I happen to have design a few games in my life and so we started digging into the idea. In the end we decided the easiest, and very power, thing that could be done, was to take nearly any existing game, like monopoly, and just given everyone random starting conditions. Use an exponential scale, role two dice and give each person their starting money based on that. Yes it's possibly for the lowest person on the totem pole to succeed and win the game, but chances are that they will not. And this is with only benefit of starting conditions. In reality the benefit of starting conditions is even greater.
In the real world, some pretty innocent starting conditions can make a significant difference in achievement later in life.
I truly fail to see how, with so many methods of communication available, that the "Assembling" part was truly stopped.
The constitution does not grant protection only from successful violation. The intent of the act of interrupting communication was to stop a protest. This is a clear violation of right to Freedom to Assemble. By your logic the government could set up any sort of blocks to communication as long as the leave open at least one form of communication. This is the kind of bullshit loop holes that the government has been hiding behind for years in the attempt to nullify the constitution.
What is being argued is that a particular technology, and the lack of presence, was abridging the right to either Speak or Assemble.
This has nothing to do with the specific technology, no mater how much you would like to make it so. This is about the fact that a government office chose to disrupt a channel of communication with the explicit intent of stopping a peaceable assembly, which is a constitutionally protected right.
This is still about being denied access to a private service.
This has nothing to do with access to private service. The private services remained active and where not in any way restricting access. The people have paid for the technology that allowed them to utilize those services while in the BART system. The system that was shut down was paid for with public funding.
The government shut down a governmentally provided service for the purpose of denying the peoples constitutionally protected right to assemble. Whether they succeeded of failed in that endeavor is inconsequential. The constitution of the United States of American protects the right to assemble, and I hope less people are like you, and more people start asserting that right.
The government isn't allowed (with certain exceptions) to control what you're allowed to say. They are not obligated to help you make your message heard, which is the most you could claim the BART network was doing.
They are not obligated to help you make your message heard, but they are obligated, by a different part of the first amendment, to not interfere with peaceable assembly. This does not mean that you can interfere with an assembly because you think it might not be peaceful, it means you can't interfere with assembly until it is no longer peaceful. My shutting down the method of communication they where directly, and admittedly, interfering with the protected right of assembly.
However acting as if it was a gross attack upon freedom is stupid in a way on slashdot can get behind.
In this specific case it was "a gross attack upon freedom". Specifically it was a violation of the constitution. Those who stand behind the governments right to these violations are worse than the government themselves.
Pretty much by definition, assembling inside of subway platforms is NOT peaceable.
Pretty much by definition, someone that would make such a statement is retarded, severely.
By that logic you could say anything that inconveniences others, or supporting a view that some disagree with, is not peaceable. The KKK has a right to assemble in public even if they anger others. The people of SF have a right to assemble in public even if it angers the other riders of the BART system. Luckily your right to be retarded is supported, if not explicitly protected, by the people of the free countries.
We are not talking about being denied the freedom to use a private service. We are talking about the government cutting off a channel of communication to stop people from being able to peaceably assemble. And if you know anything about the constitution, then you know that Freedom of Assembly is protected, in the same amendment that protects freedom of speech. So yes we can "rally around...the government taking away our rights", we just have to acknowledge which right they took away. This is a clear constitutional violation and we have every right to treat it as one.
On the other hand, disrupting cell service seems like a violation of free speech. It may not be necessary for free speech, but it's still a method people use to communicate.
It's not free speech that is the problem here. It's the right to assembly. The government cutting off communications for the expressed purpose of curtailing a protest is a clear violation of the Freedom of Assembly clause of the first amendment. Some lawyer needs to jump on this before governments believe they can continue to stomp all over the constitution (yes I realize it might be to late for that.).
As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.
So what two forms of identification did you use to get any of the jobs you have had in your life?
Yes you can be an american citizen, natural born, and not have any form of universal identification. Though you would find your life to be very restricted. Just proving your citizenship would be down right impossible. In reality practically all US citizens have a Universal ID, and though you can not be required to reveal that ID, you can be restricted from service for not doing so.
Any news on HIV / AIDS? Strange that that isn't the first virus threw into the petri dish with this stuff, to be honest.
Curing AIDS would cause an extreme negative impact on many pharmaceutical companies revenue stream. Of course that would rely on HIV being the actual cause of AIDS.
And this is where many Americans simply do not understand their true rights.
Actually I think it is you that does not understand the true rights of US citizens. Libel, slander, incitement to act, and everything else you said or implied, has nothing to do with the legality of speech. All of those are about the actual affect of the speech.
It's not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is illegal to "cause a panic." If your shouting does not actually cause a panic then it is not illegal. So it's not speach that is restricted in this case, it's causing panic, and the affects of that panic. This was clarified in Brandenburg v. Ohio where it was stated that what is illegal is " inciting or producing imminent lawless action". The fact that speech can be used to do these two things is beside the point, as its the affect, not the speech, that is illegal.
Trying to create a work of fiction on your tax return is also illegal, even though that can be considered saying what you want.
Again, the issue here would not have anything to do with the fiction that you created, or the words that were used. The issue would be with the attempt to defraud the government. This does not change the fact that the speech is protected.
Rights to free speech are not infinite and all encompassing. You have to be reasonable.
Right to free speech is infinite and all encompassing. The fact that the supreme court doesn't fully understand this, does not change that right.
When someone says a sentence like that how do we know it isn't a command coming from a militia leader?
And what if they are. The first amendment was very clearly intended to allow the people to organize opposition to the government. This country was founded by people that used force to over throw their prior ruling government, and wanted the people of this country to be protected in that right if the new government was corrupted. The current government, by some peoples view, has become corrupted and needs to be replace. Militia leaders (another constitutionally protected right), have the right to assemble and discuss the removal and replacement of the current government. If we make it illegal to discuss violence against the government, and then create a system that would require violence to actual change to take place, then we would ultimately be denying the people the right to make change in their government. The founding fathers knew this and created a constitution to protect those very rights.
That doesn't necessarily mean that manufacturing is at a point high enough to employ a significant portion of the population in an age of automation.
Manufacturing in the 4th largest employment sector in the united states, employing nearly 12 million people. Above that is Education, Retail and Social Services, none of which are particularly IP driven. So you can make all the statements you want, but the reality is that the US is no more IP driven than any other nation.
The official figure is widely ridiculed and it fails to take into account certain demographics. Maybe you might want to check your facts before you post?
Why don't you please provide a reputable reference that shows that this number is any more underestimated than the statistics of the rest of the world?
Your original argument is false, but I didn't have to tell you that, I'm sure you knew that before you made it. I'm not going to defend the US government, but if you want people to believe you, it would do best to make credible arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the summary is overtly lying - the albuterol inhalers cost as little as $30. It's even in the linked article.
$30 plus a $100 per year to have your Dr. write you a prescription.
If trusted boot is used to deny people's right to hardware they lawfully purchased I expect to see attacks of both technical and legal natures succeeding against trusted boot.
How is this restricting a person right to purchased hardware. This is no different than car manufactures making cars that only run on gasoline. I mean you can't just run out and put Deisel or Propane in your average car and expect it to work. Yes you can make hardware modifications to the system to allow alternate fuels, but that's essentially the same as what you would have to do to a PC to get it to boot an alternate OS.
I just think you are going over board. Your still have every right to modify your hardware, unless you licensed the hardware but I have not see that happen yet.
I think you mean you don't have to pump our own gas in Oregon, or New Jersey.
By your argument, after the hotel is of a certain age, it should become public, and anyone should be able to use it, for free. What is that, you say? Build another hotel if I want to continue to earn income?
There is nothing to stop the hotel's competitors from making an identical copy of the hotel and giving that away for free. And it doesn't take 50 years before the competitors can do that. Copyright effectively stops that from being possible on copyrighted works.
The fact that copying media is cheaper and easier is no reason that it should have any greater protection, and certainly not infinite protection.
EXCEPT for copyrighted stuff, there are no limits on the amount of time you continue to earn money off your product, as long as people still want it.
This is not entirely true. You can continue to make money off a specific product, by trademarked name, indefinitely. What you can not do is restrict the resale of the already produced items, or the production of a competing, and identical item (once any patents run out). Copyright on the other hand makes competing items, such as an identical book by a different name or slightly different format, illegal. So the reality is that only copyrighted material has an indefinite monopoly (assume they continue to extend copyright as they have).
For example, I could produce a product that is identical to Coca Cola, as long as I name it in a way that does not infringe on trademark, and market it. I could even label it as "same ingredients as coca-cola". There is absolutely nothing stopping you from make a copy of the coke formula and giving it away for free. Look at the nock off perfume industry or generic medicine if you want to see clear examples of this happening. If these companies had the same protection as copyright then there would be no nockoffs, or generics, or really any competition.
Just imagine if Ford's patents never expired and he chose not to license any of them. I guess we would all just have to be driving Fords and only Fords.
Totally annecdotal, and may reflect the parents more than how the child get's it's milk, but in my experience breast fed children are healthier by far, having fewer allergies and fewer childhood illnesses. There are other benefits I have noticed as well, but those could have to do other environmental factors (many, not all, parents that chose formula do so because the mother does not want to be inconvenienced, which does reflect on what kind of mother we are talking about.)
In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb...
The american system does nothing to alleviate this specific issue. We have just as long of emergency wait times, depending on the severity of the illness (a child with a head injury can get in pretty quickly). But in our case, not only do we have long wait lines, we end up with a multi thousand dollar bill when we leave (which may or may not be covered by insurance).
Just to quote the article you linked to: "That’s nearly double the next closest console, the Nintendo Wii, which saw sales of 273,000 units. Sony PlayStation 3 numbers were not available." Gee, yes MS is doing great compared to the Wii, to bad there is no evidence it is outselling the PS3, even in the US since they don't have the PS3 numbers.
What MS is doing is good for customers (though that's not why they're doing it). It sucks when you're forced to wait several extra months to get a game just because the developer was handed a big bag of money by some mega-corp hoping to coerce you into buying their console next time around.
So what you are saying is that it is better for consumers if the producers make less money and delay all versions until they are all complete. With the current exclusive model, publisher get additional funds, and often additional support, which helps them get a product available sooner for at least one platform. Ultimately this also means it will be released sooner for all platforms as there will be additional revenue for resources. Exclusivity rarely means waiting longer than you would have otherwise, but it does often mean that at least one subset of consumers gets the product sooner than they would have otherwise. If you are in that subset then you benefit, if you are not then you neither gain or lose.
The MS approach here is even worse for small developers, as no one is going to be offering them exclusive bonus or technical assistance. The MS approach just means that the small developers must either complete the xbox version first, screwing playstation owners, or delay both versions until they are both complete. Or worse yet, in the developer is only familiar with the Playstation then they can never have their product ported to the XBox, screwing XBox owners, or again delaying both until the Xbox port is complete (ports take time), screwing everyone.
Ever get a strange charge on your phone bill? Ever try to get it reversed?
Yes on both accounts, and never had an issue getting them reversed. Even after admitting that they were legitimate charges but I just didn't feel it was reasonable. My banks have also been fairly decent about this, until recently. I the last year I would say I would much rather dispute a charge with a cell phone provider than a bank.
I have a good relationship with my mobile provider. Been with them for over ten years and never had a problem that was not resolved to my satisfaction. I have had them wipe out hundreds of dollars in legitimate charges simply because I have asked and since I have been a customer for so long. Mind you that will all be for naught if the FTC decides to let my carrier be absorbed into the monstrosity that is AT&T.
These people were not stopped completely from communicating.
The only argument being made is that because the government failed in their attempt to stifle the freedom to assemble (assembly by any means is still assembly, it need not be in the same single physical location) and because they failed they are not responsible for the attempt. I really feel sorry for anyone that supports this view, because it means that it is only a violation once it is successful, but once it is successful, it's too late.
If you are arguing that they did this deliberately to stop free speech (impossible to stop free assembly), than you must also accept that the government is now mandated by the Constitution to keep that specific communication method available to the public.
The issue here is not that a service was interrupted, it is that the service was intentionally interrupted by a government supported official organization for the intended purpose to curtail freedom of association, both assembly and speech. There is no argument that a private (non-governmentally funded) organization has every right to discontinue their services, assuming no governmental pressure. There is no argument that the government should not be able to discontinue or disrupt services as needed, for maintenance or cost reduction. The argument is far simpler than that, and that argument is that the government is in violation of the protected rights of the constitution if they deny citizens access to a service for the purpose of restricting the rights protected by the constitution, expressed or otherwise.
If you are willing to actually address the argument then there may be possibility of continued "logical and rational discourse". But so far you have done nothing but to attempt to ignore the actual argument being presented and drawing false conclusions.
On birthday of mine, a few years back, I decided to go to a bar, and I had the pleasure of sitting next to a sociology grad student. The student I sat next to started talking to me about some project he had to do where he had to design a game that encompassed a sociological theme. I happen to have design a few games in my life and so we started digging into the idea. In the end we decided the easiest, and very power, thing that could be done, was to take nearly any existing game, like monopoly, and just given everyone random starting conditions. Use an exponential scale, role two dice and give each person their starting money based on that. Yes it's possibly for the lowest person on the totem pole to succeed and win the game, but chances are that they will not. And this is with only benefit of starting conditions. In reality the benefit of starting conditions is even greater.
In the real world, some pretty innocent starting conditions can make a significant difference in achievement later in life.
Nuclear Winter
I truly fail to see how, with so many methods of communication available, that the "Assembling" part was truly stopped.
The constitution does not grant protection only from successful violation. The intent of the act of interrupting communication was to stop a protest. This is a clear violation of right to Freedom to Assemble. By your logic the government could set up any sort of blocks to communication as long as the leave open at least one form of communication. This is the kind of bullshit loop holes that the government has been hiding behind for years in the attempt to nullify the constitution.
What is being argued is that a particular technology, and the lack of presence, was abridging the right to either Speak or Assemble.
This has nothing to do with the specific technology, no mater how much you would like to make it so. This is about the fact that a government office chose to disrupt a channel of communication with the explicit intent of stopping a peaceable assembly, which is a constitutionally protected right.
This is still about being denied access to a private service.
This has nothing to do with access to private service. The private services remained active and where not in any way restricting access. The people have paid for the technology that allowed them to utilize those services while in the BART system. The system that was shut down was paid for with public funding.
The government shut down a governmentally provided service for the purpose of denying the peoples constitutionally protected right to assemble. Whether they succeeded of failed in that endeavor is inconsequential. The constitution of the United States of American protects the right to assemble, and I hope less people are like you, and more people start asserting that right.
The government isn't allowed (with certain exceptions) to control what you're allowed to say. They are not obligated to help you make your message heard, which is the most you could claim the BART network was doing.
They are not obligated to help you make your message heard, but they are obligated, by a different part of the first amendment, to not interfere with peaceable assembly. This does not mean that you can interfere with an assembly because you think it might not be peaceful, it means you can't interfere with assembly until it is no longer peaceful. My shutting down the method of communication they where directly, and admittedly, interfering with the protected right of assembly.
However acting as if it was a gross attack upon freedom is stupid in a way on slashdot can get behind.
In this specific case it was "a gross attack upon freedom". Specifically it was a violation of the constitution. Those who stand behind the governments right to these violations are worse than the government themselves.
Pretty much by definition, assembling inside of subway platforms is NOT peaceable.
Pretty much by definition, someone that would make such a statement is retarded, severely.
By that logic you could say anything that inconveniences others, or supporting a view that some disagree with, is not peaceable. The KKK has a right to assemble in public even if they anger others. The people of SF have a right to assemble in public even if it angers the other riders of the BART system. Luckily your right to be retarded is supported, if not explicitly protected, by the people of the free countries.
We are not talking about being denied the freedom to use a private service. We are talking about the government cutting off a channel of communication to stop people from being able to peaceably assemble. And if you know anything about the constitution, then you know that Freedom of Assembly is protected, in the same amendment that protects freedom of speech. So yes we can "rally around...the government taking away our rights", we just have to acknowledge which right they took away. This is a clear constitutional violation and we have every right to treat it as one.
On the other hand, disrupting cell service seems like a violation of free speech. It may not be necessary for free speech, but it's still a method people use to communicate.
It's not free speech that is the problem here. It's the right to assembly. The government cutting off communications for the expressed purpose of curtailing a protest is a clear violation of the Freedom of Assembly clause of the first amendment. Some lawyer needs to jump on this before governments believe they can continue to stomp all over the constitution (yes I realize it might be to late for that.).
I tend to think that the Apple II had a hand in popularizing personal computing
You can think that, but the reality is that the personal computing revolution did not begin until the arrival of the commodore 64.
As for a driver's license, I did not have one until I was 33 years old, and I only need it when I am driving an automobile -- that is why it is called a driver's license. The only person who ever gets to see it, is a police officer and only if I am driving. There is no other legitimate need for anyone to see it, ever.
So what two forms of identification did you use to get any of the jobs you have had in your life?
Yes you can be an american citizen, natural born, and not have any form of universal identification. Though you would find your life to be very restricted. Just proving your citizenship would be down right impossible. In reality practically all US citizens have a Universal ID, and though you can not be required to reveal that ID, you can be restricted from service for not doing so.
Any news on HIV / AIDS? Strange that that isn't the first virus threw into the petri dish with this stuff, to be honest.
Curing AIDS would cause an extreme negative impact on many pharmaceutical companies revenue stream. Of course that would rely on HIV being the actual cause of AIDS.
And this is where many Americans simply do not understand their true rights.
Actually I think it is you that does not understand the true rights of US citizens. Libel, slander, incitement to act, and everything else you said or implied, has nothing to do with the legality of speech. All of those are about the actual affect of the speech.
It's not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is illegal to "cause a panic." If your shouting does not actually cause a panic then it is not illegal. So it's not speach that is restricted in this case, it's causing panic, and the affects of that panic. This was clarified in Brandenburg v. Ohio where it was stated that what is illegal is " inciting or producing imminent lawless action". The fact that speech can be used to do these two things is beside the point, as its the affect, not the speech, that is illegal.
Trying to create a work of fiction on your tax return is also illegal, even though that can be considered saying what you want.
Again, the issue here would not have anything to do with the fiction that you created, or the words that were used. The issue would be with the attempt to defraud the government. This does not change the fact that the speech is protected.
Rights to free speech are not infinite and all encompassing. You have to be reasonable.
Right to free speech is infinite and all encompassing. The fact that the supreme court doesn't fully understand this, does not change that right.
When someone says a sentence like that how do we know it isn't a command coming from a militia leader?
And what if they are. The first amendment was very clearly intended to allow the people to organize opposition to the government. This country was founded by people that used force to over throw their prior ruling government, and wanted the people of this country to be protected in that right if the new government was corrupted. The current government, by some peoples view, has become corrupted and needs to be replace. Militia leaders (another constitutionally protected right), have the right to assemble and discuss the removal and replacement of the current government. If we make it illegal to discuss violence against the government, and then create a system that would require violence to actual change to take place, then we would ultimately be denying the people the right to make change in their government. The founding fathers knew this and created a constitution to protect those very rights.
That doesn't necessarily mean that manufacturing is at a point high enough to employ a significant portion of the population in an age of automation.
Manufacturing in the 4th largest employment sector in the united states, employing nearly 12 million people. Above that is Education, Retail and Social Services, none of which are particularly IP driven. So you can make all the statements you want, but the reality is that the US is no more IP driven than any other nation.
The official figure is widely ridiculed and it fails to take into account certain demographics. Maybe you might want to check your facts before you post?
Why don't you please provide a reputable reference that shows that this number is any more underestimated than the statistics of the rest of the world?
Your original argument is false, but I didn't have to tell you that, I'm sure you knew that before you made it. I'm not going to defend the US government, but if you want people to believe you, it would do best to make credible arguments.