"if it says nothing about something the feds don't have the power, it limits the feds"
This is a popular myth. There is nothing to this effect in the constitution or in the ratifications.
"The framers of the U.S. Constitution advocated that the power of government would be limited.?" "As so eloquently explained by Alexander Hamilton and John Madison, the "practical security" of imposing limited power in each department may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson James Madison, the principal writer of the Constitution, wrote this:
"The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States."
Perhaps you need to go back to school to learn what the USA's Founding Fathers thought about government.
Unfortunately too many uneducated Americans don't do the math, they just see one price. Most of my fellow Americans also think that paying $250/month for 72 months is better than paying $350/month for 48 months for the same car.
A long loan term with lower monthly payments can be a good decision, if the difference in payments is invested. Say the loan interest is 6% and you're able to earn 8% by investing, you come out 2% ahead. Also with lower monthly payments if for any reason you end up having financial trouble, for instance if you lose your job and don't find one for an extended period, the difference in payment amounts may mean the difference between keeping and losing the car. Otherwise you're right about people being in debt up to their eyeballs.
There might be some possibly there, but you'd need an enormous capital investment just to get started.
Biodiesel is growing, though maybe not as fast as some would like it. The highwayman Willie Nelson (pun intended) started Bio Willie. Biodiesel production is sharply increasing. An unfortunate side effect is that forests are being cleared for monoculture crops like palm tree plantations for the oil. What I'd like to see is an analysis to see if the cure is worse than the problem.
IRC the diesel was allowed to carry more fuel despite diesel being more energy-dense per volume. Which, BTW, is why MPG is a pretty useless way to measure diesel vs. gasoline efficiency. If the rules were similar, the diesel would not have won.
As I see it carrying more fuel has two negatives, so can you explain why if the rules were the same the diesel would not have won? With the diesel carrying more fuel it had more weight to move. If it carried less fuel then it's mileage and speed would of been better. I don't know how many tymes I've seen commercials on TV or read something that said because of the weight of fuel it's better to only have the fuel tank half filled.
I think perhaps you missed my point. I am not saying that abuses don't happen
Perhaps you missed my point, abuses do happen. And if the government gets the power to deny anonymity then it will abuse that power.
There's an old saying about boxes and the order they are to be used in. If you oppose a regime that doesn't respect the voice box, the answer isn't whispering, it's moving to the next box.
Yes, I've said it myself. The first box is the soap box, speech, therefore the right to anonymous speech. Would you want your boss to be able to fire you because you exercised political speech he or she disagreed with? Would you want Brownshirts to monitor demonstrations and protests and take down names? I've also talked about the second box, the jury box and jury nullification. For the third box, ballot box, I support the Libertarian Party. Lastly I support the Right to Bare Arms.
Finally, Jefferson had no hand in writing any of what was published as the Federalist Papers
I didn't say he did, however he was a Founding Father.
So, you don't think you have the right to be anonymous, will you feel the same after you've been fired for your political speech? And why stop there? Have election officials give out receipts on how you voted as well, then when you don't vote the way your employer demands they can fire you. After all anonymity isn't needed.
I could've also anticipated his slowdown a few seconds earlier and lifted off the throttle a bit, but this may result in the driver behind me putting *his* brakes on.
I don't think that's happened to me that much. I speed a lot but I also coast, when I do people either close the distance between us or they change lanes and go around me, some of them honking or flipping a finger. What I find the most dangerous are the ones who have to talk on their cellphone while driving.
I don't speed (or if I do, it is not deliberate and I slow back down to the limit) and I am passed left and right (and passing on the right is not legal) and I've seen people scream on discussion forums at anyone who dares to obey the law, as if obeying the law is something to sneer at (it's not; the rules exist for a damn good reason and no one is above it).
Thing is is that roads can typically handle faster traffic than the speed limit. Also speeding doesn't mean you're more dangerous, witness Germany's autobahns. Outside of cities there are no speed limits yet they don't have a higher rate of accidents, er the last tyme I checked they didn't.
Before my reply I included the part I was replying to, "The government directly competes in the mail market with USPS." The Constitution gives that power to the federal government.
Is there any law that forbids the government from competing in any business or industry?
The USA Constitution forbids the government from doing many things it does. What many don't or won't acknowledge is that the Constitution specifically lists what power the federal government has, if it says nothing about something the feds don't have the power, it limits the feds. However it does not restrict state or local governments from doing many of those things.
The average person here has biceps the size of a match.
I'm rather eclectic and have a wide range of interests. In high school I was torn between majoring in Computer Engineering and Marine Science or Oceanography. I eventually chose to major in CE though I sometimes regret not choosing Marine Science. As a senior the marine biology class I took went on a field trip to Mote Marine Laboratory. There one of the scientists offered me, and a friend, summer jobs. He said if we wanted to he would help us be accepted into college and pay for it with a major in a related field. By that tyme I had already decided to major in CE, if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major, CE and a Marine Science. I didn't know such things were possible. Coming from a low income family, my dad retired as an enlisted person from the US Air Force and my mom worked her way through a 2 year technical school to become a lab technician in medicine. Not having the money to go to college, and not believing I could get financial aid to go, I enlisted in the army to save money to go to college when I got out.
However me being active in the outdoors didn't start when I went in the army, as hinted at above. I spent a lot of tyme on the beach, coast, and scuba dived. Growing up I also camped at least a couple of tymes a year, went fishing and hunting frequently, and gardened. Also, for physical fitness in high school I was on the swim and dive team and I worked out with the gymnastics team.
From what I heard the main long-term stress on the condition comes from hauling around all that high-tech these days. Is this true ?
I don't know if it's true. I was in the army in the '80s and we didn't have a lot of high tech goodies. About the only high tech stuff we had was the transmitters and receivers we used for mock combat. We'd attach a transmitter on the end of our M16 which when the M16 was fired would send a signal. We'd also wear detectors, which if the alarm went off meant you were shot and you'd have to play dead. Heck in my first unit, at Fort Benning, we didn't even have APCs, Armoured personnel carrier. When we had to go somewhere we either marched or we took duce n half trucks.
I imagine they had less gadgets back then but they didn't have light materials as well...
Some may think we had to carry a lot but I don't. At least once a year we had to carry 40 lbs in our rucksack along with our M16, canteen, and other things on a 12 mile march. We frequently marched a lot, being a leg unit and not having APCs, so that wasn't a hard thing. Actually when we did the qualifying march, we didn't actually march. Instead we did the march individually, like a hike, and some of us would run it.
Now if you want to talk about carrying a lot of weight, when we trained with the Special Forces their rucksacks weighed at least 90 lobs. To match them we'd put big rocks in our rucksacks but we couldn't get ours to weigh as much because theirs were bigger than ours. They'd let us carry theirs some though, as some would say we were hardcore.
A friend of mine is in the army and he once explained how they had lessons in "dissecting" human faecal matter to establish the health of the opposition.
That came after I got out, we didn't do anything like that.
You know, you really tend to lose credibility saying extraordinarily stupid shit like that. If you would have read the first line from the link I provided:
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. As do some of the USA's Founding Fathers, otherwise they would have signed their names on the Federalist Papers.
The arguments about abuse by governments are fundamentally flawed:
So CointelPro wasn't real? Neither was Watergate. And J Edgar Hoover never had secret files? That's just recently in the US never mind other tymes and places.
You're the one confused, Bush was the governor of Texas not Clinton, and as governor Bush signed 152 death warrants.
Personally, I applaud both Clinton and Bush for upholding the law. If you are competent enough to do the crime, you are competent enough to see justice!
And fuck those who were innocent? I don't want to live in your world.
But the death penalty is not in question here. What is in question is the death penalty without a trial.
I see nothing in the post I replied to that said anything about the death penalty without a trial. I even reopened it and searched for "trial" but I didn't find it. Coudl you point out where it is?
if you want to keep saying that GWB is like Che
Can you also point out where I said Bush was like Che? I don't recall ever saying anything about Che never mind Bush was like him... I searched slashdot for falcon che as well as googled slashdot for falcon che and didn't find anything anywhere where I said like that. Can you point out where? Or are you blowing smoke out of your ass?
since when is being anonymous a right. frankly the way people try to term everything as some kind of intrinsic right pisses me off
It is a right, at least here in the US. More than one US Supreme Court has ruled that anonymity is a right. Here's some of what the USSC said in one case. I don't recall what year but one ruling was in the early 1800s when the court ruled that if a person doesn't have the right to anonymity then they don't have the right of free speech. If what a person says can be used against them then that person is not free to speak as they wish. Secrete ballots are secrete for the same reason.
if the government wants to chase down scammers, spammers, identity thieves and other criminal scumbags that use the intertubes for felonious activities then good, i am tired of getting hundreds of spam every week, and tired of the worry when i use a credit card to make purchases online...
Unlike you I value my liberty more than I do being "safe" Give up liberty so you can be safe and you deserve neither.
Antibiotic drugs are a pretty big waste of money in terms of development
I don't think antibiotics are a waste. What I do consider deadly is improper use of antibiotics. Such as not following through with an antibiotic regime a doctor prescribes. Or flushing unused drugs down the toilet. Both of these are part of the reason microbes develop drug resistance.
Texas uses lethal injection not the firing squad. And as governor of Texas Bush signed 152 death warrants, he even signed one for a mentally retarded person.
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes.
No, it's a right period.
being able to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals is a worthwhile goal.
To you perhaps but not to others. Like Benjamen Franklin said those who would give up a little liberty for safety neither deserves nor will get either.
Slashdot Mirror
"if it says nothing about something the feds don't have the power, it limits the feds"
This is a popular myth. There is nothing to this effect in the constitution or in the ratifications.
"The framers of the U.S. Constitution advocated that the power of government would be limited.?" "As so eloquently explained by Alexander Hamilton and John Madison, the "practical security" of imposing limited power in each department may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson James Madison, the principal writer of the Constitution, wrote this:
"The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States."
Perhaps you need to go back to school to learn what the USA's Founding Fathers thought about government.
Falcon
Your complete lack of skepticism is evidence how well they succeeded.
Your compleat lack of skepticism is evidence of how well fascists, neocons, and neoliberals have succeeded.
Falcon
So would I. VW has one.
Unfortunately too many uneducated Americans don't do the math, they just see one price. Most of my fellow Americans also think that paying $250/month for 72 months is better than paying $350/month for 48 months for the same car.
A long loan term with lower monthly payments can be a good decision, if the difference in payments is invested. Say the loan interest is 6% and you're able to earn 8% by investing, you come out 2% ahead. Also with lower monthly payments if for any reason you end up having financial trouble, for instance if you lose your job and don't find one for an extended period, the difference in payment amounts may mean the difference between keeping and losing the car. Otherwise you're right about people being in debt up to their eyeballs.
Falcon
There might be some possibly there, but you'd need an enormous capital investment just to get started.
Biodiesel is growing, though maybe not as fast as some would like it. The highwayman Willie Nelson (pun intended) started Bio Willie. Biodiesel production is sharply increasing. An unfortunate side effect is that forests are being cleared for monoculture crops like palm tree plantations for the oil. What I'd like to see is an analysis to see if the cure is worse than the problem.
Falcon
IRC the diesel was allowed to carry more fuel despite diesel being more energy-dense per volume. Which, BTW, is why MPG is a pretty useless way to measure diesel vs. gasoline efficiency. If the rules were similar, the diesel would not have won.
As I see it carrying more fuel has two negatives, so can you explain why if the rules were the same the diesel would not have won? With the diesel carrying more fuel it had more weight to move. If it carried less fuel then it's mileage and speed would of been better. I don't know how many tymes I've seen commercials on TV or read something that said because of the weight of fuel it's better to only have the fuel tank half filled.
Falcon
No, the Supreme Court does not give rights.
Then don't offer their decisions as evidence for a right.
I offer Supreme Court cases because their rulings do affirm rights, they don't grant them.
you have a right to privacy because SCOTUS says so
No, all SCOTUS does is affirm rights, though in some cases it denies those rights.
Decide, Falcon. This isn't an academic question, your life may someday depend on your answer.
Decide what?
Falcon
I think perhaps you missed my point. I am not saying that abuses don't happen
Perhaps you missed my point, abuses do happen. And if the government gets the power to deny anonymity then it will abuse that power.
There's an old saying about boxes and the order they are to be used in. If you oppose a regime that doesn't respect the voice box, the answer isn't whispering, it's moving to the next box.
Yes, I've said it myself. The first box is the soap box, speech, therefore the right to anonymous speech. Would you want your boss to be able to fire you because you exercised political speech he or she disagreed with? Would you want Brownshirts to monitor demonstrations and protests and take down names? I've also talked about the second box, the jury box and jury nullification. For the third box, ballot box, I support the Libertarian Party. Lastly I support the Right to Bare Arms.
Falcon
I actually do disagree with the Supreme Court,
So do I but not about anonymity, democracy requires it.
Second, you strike out on two of the three sources you try to cite as supporting evidence.
Did you also check the cases referred to in them? Either way try this:
Supreme Court upholds anonymity in political speech.
Finally, Jefferson had no hand in writing any of what was published as the Federalist Papers
I didn't say he did, however he was a Founding Father.
So, you don't think you have the right to be anonymous, will you feel the same after you've been fired for your political speech? And why stop there? Have election officials give out receipts on how you voted as well, then when you don't vote the way your employer demands they can fire you. After all anonymity isn't needed.
Falcon
I could've also anticipated his slowdown a few seconds earlier and lifted off the throttle a bit, but this may result in the driver behind me putting *his* brakes on.
I don't think that's happened to me that much. I speed a lot but I also coast, when I do people either close the distance between us or they change lanes and go around me, some of them honking or flipping a finger. What I find the most dangerous are the ones who have to talk on their cellphone while driving.
Falcon
I don't speed (or if I do, it is not deliberate and I slow back down to the limit) and I am passed left and right (and passing on the right is not legal) and I've seen people scream on discussion forums at anyone who dares to obey the law, as if obeying the law is something to sneer at (it's not; the rules exist for a damn good reason and no one is above it).
Thing is is that roads can typically handle faster traffic than the speed limit. Also speeding doesn't mean you're more dangerous, witness Germany's autobahns. Outside of cities there are no speed limits yet they don't have a higher rate of accidents, er the last tyme I checked they didn't.
Falcon
So? What does that have to do with it?
Before my reply I included the part I was replying to, "The government directly competes in the mail market with USPS." The Constitution gives that power to the federal government.
Is there any law that forbids the government from competing in any business or industry?
The USA Constitution forbids the government from doing many things it does. What many don't or won't acknowledge is that the Constitution specifically lists what power the federal government has, if it says nothing about something the feds don't have the power, it limits the feds. However it does not restrict state or local governments from doing many of those things.
Falcon
The average person here has biceps the size of a match.
I'm rather eclectic and have a wide range of interests. In high school I was torn between majoring in Computer Engineering and Marine Science or Oceanography. I eventually chose to major in CE though I sometimes regret not choosing Marine Science. As a senior the marine biology class I took went on a field trip to Mote Marine Laboratory. There one of the scientists offered me, and a friend, summer jobs. He said if we wanted to he would help us be accepted into college and pay for it with a major in a related field. By that tyme I had already decided to major in CE, if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major, CE and a Marine Science. I didn't know such things were possible. Coming from a low income family, my dad retired as an enlisted person from the US Air Force and my mom worked her way through a 2 year technical school to become a lab technician in medicine. Not having the money to go to college, and not believing I could get financial aid to go, I enlisted in the army to save money to go to college when I got out.
However me being active in the outdoors didn't start when I went in the army, as hinted at above. I spent a lot of tyme on the beach, coast, and scuba dived. Growing up I also camped at least a couple of tymes a year, went fishing and hunting frequently, and gardened. Also, for physical fitness in high school I was on the swim and dive team and I worked out with the gymnastics team.
From what I heard the main long-term stress on the condition comes from hauling around all that high-tech these days. Is this true ?
I don't know if it's true. I was in the army in the '80s and we didn't have a lot of high tech goodies. About the only high tech stuff we had was the transmitters and receivers we used for mock combat. We'd attach a transmitter on the end of our M16 which when the M16 was fired would send a signal. We'd also wear detectors, which if the alarm went off meant you were shot and you'd have to play dead. Heck in my first unit, at Fort Benning, we didn't even have APCs, Armoured personnel carrier. When we had to go somewhere we either marched or we took duce n half trucks.
I imagine they had less gadgets back then but they didn't have light materials as well ...
Some may think we had to carry a lot but I don't. At least once a year we had to carry 40 lbs in our rucksack along with our M16, canteen, and other things on a 12 mile march. We frequently marched a lot, being a leg unit and not having APCs, so that wasn't a hard thing. Actually when we did the qualifying march, we didn't actually march. Instead we did the march individually, like a hike, and some of us would run it.
Now if you want to talk about carrying a lot of weight, when we trained with the Special Forces their rucksacks weighed at least 90 lobs. To match them we'd put big rocks in our rucksacks but we couldn't get ours to weigh as much because theirs were bigger than ours. They'd let us carry theirs some though, as some would say we were hardcore.
A friend of mine is in the army and he once explained how they had lessons in "dissecting" human faecal matter to establish the health of the opposition.
That came after I got out, we didn't do anything like that.
Falcon
You know, you really tend to lose credibility saying extraordinarily stupid shit like that. If you would have read the first line from the link I provided:
You lost credibility already.
Falcon
No one has a right to be anonymous.
So, you have more knowledge than the US Supreme Court does?
Jefferson and the Founders never had this in mind.
Why didn't they sign their names on the Federalist Papers then?
Falcon
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. As do some of the USA's Founding Fathers, otherwise they would have signed their names on the Federalist Papers.
Falcon
No, the Supreme Court does not give rights.
Then don't complain when they take them away.
I will complain when they take my rights away. I'm sure if you don't want them the Dear Leader would love to take them away from you.
Falcon
The arguments about abuse by governments are fundamentally flawed:
So CointelPro wasn't real? Neither was Watergate. And J Edgar Hoover never had secret files? That's just recently in the US never mind other tymes and places.
Falcon
I think you are confusing GWB with WJC
You're the one confused, Bush was the governor of Texas not Clinton, and as governor Bush signed 152 death warrants.
Personally, I applaud both Clinton and Bush for upholding the law. If you are competent enough to do the crime, you are competent enough to see justice!
And fuck those who were innocent? I don't want to live in your world.
But the death penalty is not in question here. What is in question is the death penalty without a trial.
I see nothing in the post I replied to that said anything about the death penalty without a trial. I even reopened it and searched for "trial" but I didn't find it. Coudl you point out where it is?
if you want to keep saying that GWB is like Che
Can you also point out where I said Bush was like Che? I don't recall ever saying anything about Che never mind Bush was like him... I searched slashdot for falcon che as well as googled slashdot for falcon che and didn't find anything anywhere where I said like that. Can you point out where? Or are you blowing smoke out of your ass?
Falcon
You don't have a right to privacy, or to anonymity. You do have a right not to be forced to assist in your own surveillance.
Yes I do.
Falcon
since when is being anonymous a right. frankly the way people try to term everything as some kind of intrinsic right pisses me off
It is a right, at least here in the US. More than one US Supreme Court has ruled that anonymity is a right. Here's some of what the USSC said in one case. I don't recall what year but one ruling was in the early 1800s when the court ruled that if a person doesn't have the right to anonymity then they don't have the right of free speech. If what a person says can be used against them then that person is not free to speak as they wish. Secrete ballots are secrete for the same reason.
Falcon
if the government wants to chase down scammers, spammers, identity thieves and other criminal scumbags that use the intertubes for felonious activities then good, i am tired of getting hundreds of spam every week, and tired of the worry when i use a credit card to make purchases online...
Unlike you I value my liberty more than I do being "safe" Give up liberty so you can be safe and you deserve neither.
Falcon
Antibiotic drugs are a pretty big waste of money in terms of development
I don't think antibiotics are a waste. What I do consider deadly is improper use of antibiotics. Such as not following through with an antibiotic regime a doctor prescribes. Or flushing unused drugs down the toilet. Both of these are part of the reason microbes develop drug resistance.
Falcon
i could have the exact same argument with money that financials should be private.
And it should be private.
Falcon
Texas uses lethal injection not the firing squad. And as governor of Texas Bush signed 152 death warrants, he even signed one for a mentally retarded person.
Falcon
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes.
No, it's a right period.
being able to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals is a worthwhile goal.
To you perhaps but not to others. Like Benjamen Franklin said those who would give up a little liberty for safety neither deserves nor will get either.
Falcon