Technology Services Group (TSG) has something like this with its Active Wizard stuff. They call it "open source", but its not F/OSS as we know it. I'd term is "shared source." You can view it, download it, modify it, and use it - but you can't share it.
You're absolutely right - I'm only 24, so I've not seen a lot of history, but it seems as if the left wing in America has made most of its gains by the domination of media, education, and entertainment. By changing the fundamental nature of our culture, they've brought about political change.
The "checks and balances" concept is sound, but I'm still waiting to see how it holds up with a socialist president and a tightly controlled Congress. So long as the makeup of the Supreme Court stays the same, I think we'll be okay. If we were to lose Justice Scalia or Roberts, and have them replaced with a Ginsberg or Thomas, I think we would be in serious trouble.
I don't know who to attribute it to, but it has been said that there are 4 boxes to use in the defense of freedom: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. Strict constructionists have failed miserably at the soapbox, and as a result we are now beginning to fail at the ballot box. The last line of defense is the judicial system. Failing there, the only way to keep this country resembling what it was originally meant to be will be armed revolt - which will likely never happen again.
All that said, I'm gathering thoughts right now to start a grassroots organization to take back the political apparatus at the local level. A couple of hundred people, energized to vote in a block, could steer elections on a county level any way they wanted. A dozen such organizations, in a state like mine, could get their picks elected to the federal level without much trouble.
There are indeed multiple definitions, and that's what I'm trying to get at here. At the time of the founding, the definition was closest to this:
Republic: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or under a free electoral system."
The word "democracy" does not appear in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. It appears in the Federalist Papers, but only as a diminutive.
Our founders took great pains to prevent us becoming a direct democracy. I'm stating that the convergence in the terms "democracy" and "republic" has led directly to the changes seen in the US government - namely, from a constitutionally restricted legislature, to today, where the vast majority of Americans believe that if 50% + 1 people vote for something, then that's the way it should be.
The American system very carefully set up in a way that certain freedoms of minority groups were outside the reach of legislation.
As an aside - where are you from? I've gathered that you're aren't from the US:) I love discussing this stuff, and am pretty passionate when it comes to our system and how it was intended to function - and how it has been corrupted over the past couple of centuries.
One more thing --- I don't know that you were speaking of the US, but if you were, the US is not a "liberal democracy", in the modern or classic sense. We are a republic, which is a whole different animal.
Increasingly, it seems that people think those words are interchangeable. They aren't, and its really sad that speakers of the English language are losing the concept of a government limited by law.
True. The US justice system assumes innocence, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. If a man acts in a way that shows that he is less than others - rapes, steals, kills, etc. - he is judged, and his rights are denied.
We're agreeing here, although I probably reacted a bit quickly on the Marx reference. Iran has proven time and again, by its actions and by its words, that it is not an equal among nations. The community has every right to demand that Iran not obtain nuclear weapons.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Power granted by the populace does not make a ruler.
I'm hoping he cools from his campaign promises. He may yet make a good - even great - President.
FWIW, there are about a half dozen people in the whole of the Democratic party that I respect in any way, shape or form. There are maybe a dozen Republicans. The whole system needs to change.
Amen to this. Short of ActionScript, the best thing that has ever happened to me was finding jQuery. I get to forget about dealing with differing implementations, and worry about coding again!
I don't think I have a full understanding of the inheritance model in Javascript yet, but I know how to right clean, readable code. Most of my insight has come through trial-and-error, though. As far as I can tell, everyone who truly understands how Javascript works is busily creating webapps, and all the posers who can't get jobs sit down and write tutorials.
What I don't understand is why people seem to think we are a democracy of any kind. We aren't.
The word "democracy" does not appear in the US Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, it appears, but in a derogatory context - it is widely considered to be a flawed form of government.
We are not a "Democratic-Republic". We are a republic. A federal republic, if you want to be pedantic about it.
It appears that the word "republic" is totally gone from the English language, and the definition of "democracy" is now "anything that involves voting."
nationalize patents and license them for free to your citizens
Maybe I'm reading too far into this, but say what!?
You're telling me the best way to increase productivity it to take the properties of the knowledge workers who have been most productive, and give it to those who aren't as productive? What incentive do people have to invent and patent anything now?
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap!
Did the plane blow up?
Wait, what? 300 years ago was 1709, and the US didn't exist.
Technology Services Group (TSG) has something like this with its Active Wizard stuff. They call it "open source", but its not F/OSS as we know it. I'd term is "shared source." You can view it, download it, modify it, and use it - but you can't share it.
Here is their license:
http://www.tsgrp.com/misc/SourceCode.jsp
You're absolutely right - I'm only 24, so I've not seen a lot of history, but it seems as if the left wing in America has made most of its gains by the domination of media, education, and entertainment. By changing the fundamental nature of our culture, they've brought about political change.
The "checks and balances" concept is sound, but I'm still waiting to see how it holds up with a socialist president and a tightly controlled Congress. So long as the makeup of the Supreme Court stays the same, I think we'll be okay. If we were to lose Justice Scalia or Roberts, and have them replaced with a Ginsberg or Thomas, I think we would be in serious trouble.
I don't know who to attribute it to, but it has been said that there are 4 boxes to use in the defense of freedom: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. Strict constructionists have failed miserably at the soapbox, and as a result we are now beginning to fail at the ballot box. The last line of defense is the judicial system. Failing there, the only way to keep this country resembling what it was originally meant to be will be armed revolt - which will likely never happen again.
All that said, I'm gathering thoughts right now to start a grassroots organization to take back the political apparatus at the local level. A couple of hundred people, energized to vote in a block, could steer elections on a county level any way they wanted. A dozen such organizations, in a state like mine, could get their picks elected to the federal level without much trouble.
There are indeed multiple definitions, and that's what I'm trying to get at here. At the time of the founding, the definition was closest to this:
Republic: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or under a free electoral system."
The word "democracy" does not appear in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. It appears in the Federalist Papers, but only as a diminutive.
Our founders took great pains to prevent us becoming a direct democracy. I'm stating that the convergence in the terms "democracy" and "republic" has led directly to the changes seen in the US government - namely, from a constitutionally restricted legislature, to today, where the vast majority of Americans believe that if 50% + 1 people vote for something, then that's the way it should be.
The American system very carefully set up in a way that certain freedoms of minority groups were outside the reach of legislation.
As an aside - where are you from? I've gathered that you're aren't from the US :) I love discussing this stuff, and am pretty passionate when it comes to our system and how it was intended to function - and how it has been corrupted over the past couple of centuries.
You meant VirtualBox OSE, right? OpenBox is a WM.
One more thing --- I don't know that you were speaking of the US, but if you were, the US is not a "liberal democracy", in the modern or classic sense. We are a republic, which is a whole different animal.
Increasingly, it seems that people think those words are interchangeable. They aren't, and its really sad that speakers of the English language are losing the concept of a government limited by law.
True. The US justice system assumes innocence, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. If a man acts in a way that shows that he is less than others - rapes, steals, kills, etc. - he is judged, and his rights are denied.
We're agreeing here, although I probably reacted a bit quickly on the Marx reference. Iran has proven time and again, by its actions and by its words, that it is not an equal among nations. The community has every right to demand that Iran not obtain nuclear weapons.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Yeah, Marx.
A republic, huh?
Where's the N. Korean constitution? Can you link that for me?
Power granted by the populace does not make a ruler.
I'm hoping he cools from his campaign promises. He may yet make a good - even great - President.
FWIW, there are about a half dozen people in the whole of the Democratic party that I respect in any way, shape or form. There are maybe a dozen Republicans. The whole system needs to change.
Amen to this. Short of ActionScript, the best thing that has ever happened to me was finding jQuery. I get to forget about dealing with differing implementations, and worry about coding again!
I don't think I have a full understanding of the inheritance model in Javascript yet, but I know how to right clean, readable code. Most of my insight has come through trial-and-error, though. As far as I can tell, everyone who truly understands how Javascript works is busily creating webapps, and all the posers who can't get jobs sit down and write tutorials.
Are you impaired?
Its a constitutional amendment. If it was already consistent with what's in there, they wouldn't have to amend it, now would they?
Some of the others have raised valid points about the procedure to modify the CA Constitution, and whether or not it creates a contradiction.
You, however, seem to be incapable of understanding what we're talking about.
Then they're challenging the process, not the content of the law. It doesn't matter who it is going to affect, except with that very narrow question.
By definition, a constitutional amendment is indeed legal.
We are not talking about a law here, we're talking about a constitutional amendment.
The courts have no authority to change a state's constitution.
Is the question "Is there oil on Mars?"
What I don't understand is why people seem to think we are a democracy of any kind. We aren't.
The word "democracy" does not appear in the US Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, it appears, but in a derogatory context - it is widely considered to be a flawed form of government.
We are not a "Democratic-Republic". We are a republic. A federal republic, if you want to be pedantic about it.
It appears that the word "republic" is totally gone from the English language, and the definition of "democracy" is now "anything that involves voting."
US Presidents aren't "rulers."
What the hell has happened to this country?
nationalize patents and license them for free to your citizens
Maybe I'm reading too far into this, but say what!?
You're telling me the best way to increase productivity it to take the properties of the knowledge workers who have been most productive, and give it to those who aren't as productive? What incentive do people have to invent and patent anything now?
Have you used the <li> operator for bullet points rather than using an asterisk?
You mean the <li> element?
HTML doesn't have operators - its markup, not script.
Does that make me a nerd?
Who would buy these "carbon credits"?
Idiots?
Art is created, and not necessarily by man. I revealed my own bias there, nothing more.
And last I checked, there are indeed calendars of men. If there is a market for it, it will be created - "beefcake" calendars included.
That would be a pretty cool way to spur the development of a species...
Men all but worship the female form. It is the most beautiful work of art ever created.
Why you think that people wanting to appreciate beauty and the feelings that it evokes is a bad thing is beyond me.