"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Nope, the corporate aristocracy listened to Thomas Jefferson. Now they just buy lawmakers and those who enforce the laws.
airlines are a private industry - there's nothing that states they have to let you fly.
Therein lies the rub, individual airlines should be the ones to set security procedures not the government. I as a passenger should be able to decide if I want to board an airline's flight that requires ID or one that does not. If an airlines wants to do an anal exam, they should be allowed to require one. Then if a passenger doesn't like that requirement s/he could then fly on an airliner that does not require it. Oh, and there's nothing that states government can't prevent passengers from flying either.
If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution.
Can you point out to be where in the Constitution of the USA it limits rights to only US citizens? Here's what James Madison had to say about Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens. Thomas Jefferson said "An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." It would have been quite easy for the Founding Fathers to exclude foreigners from having rights too, but did they? No! They said the opposite.
What additional freedoms do you think Americans have? I felt more "free" when I lived in New Zealand - I wasn't tied to a job for health insurance,
Unfortunately there is no free market in health insurance in the US. And there hasn't been sense World War II. Some of us have been fighting for the freedom though.
I wasn't drug tested when I applied for a job,
Some of us have also been fighting to end the War on Drugs. Either politicians haven't learned from Prohibition or they have ulterior motives. Hemp, marijuana, was made illegal only because wealthy and powerful industrialists in the US saw it as a threat. Opium was first made illegal in the City of San Francisco in 1872 because of "anti-Chinese hostility", Chinese were the major users of opium.
I was free to walk barefoot in a shop,
As was I while I lived in Florida.
I didn't have to deal with the massive bureaucracy of health care and taxes here
America has no free market in health insurance, and there is little competition between insurance companies.
I knew that if I lost my job I would get a little help from society until I was back on my feet again
"Unemployment compensation is money received by an unemployed worker from the United States or a state."
All too often throughout history, there are examples of freedoms lost because the people were unable to (effectively) fight, usually accomplished by outlawing weaponry for the general populace (swords/spears/bows/crossbows back long ago, guns today).
I don't think liberty and freedom will be lost in the USA because of ineffectiveness in fighting to keep them but because of apathy. We've had generations live who have not had to fight and losing a little liberty here and there is just so "ho, hum".
This is why the citizens of the U.S. keep requiring the right to bear arms
Unfortunately it's small groups who keep fighting, other than the NRA, the fight to keep the right to bare arms. And some of those groups give the rest black eyes, such as the militia group in Michigan in the news now. Gun control advocates have about as much if not more influence.
[T]he Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening...
They're actually now trying to correlate security screening with specific, known information about actual suspects, rather than saying, "So you're from Pakistan? Would you mind coming with me, sir?" The new policies will be far from perfect, I'm sure, but they seem more sensible than a "random" screening based solely on nationality.
Yea, it's imperfect. Not only that but the Constitution of the USA does not give the federal government these powers.
Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Fair enough, but I think the founding fathers would also have had a difficult time envisioning several dozen unrelated people climbing into a flying metal tube to cross the ocean in a matter of hours. They also probably didn't foresee the rise of ideologies that make those flying tubes attractive targets for persons armed with concealable explosive devices. Saying that the Founding Fathers were poorly-versed in 21st century technology and geopolitics doesn't mean much by itself. I'm willing to bet the passengers on any of the airplanes that have been subject to terrorist attacks in the past few years would have been willing to undergo a full body scan if it meant the bad guy couldn't get on the plane with them.
Then amend the Constitution. Don't treat it like TP. As for what the Founding father envisioning, they easily envisioned government goons knocking down doors and dragging away the people inside. As for terrorists, as President, Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to fight Barbary pirates in North Africa. Between them and what the British did the Founding Fathers knew what the enemy was capable of. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton of the Green Dragoon wasn't known as a butcher for nothing, he "practiced total war -- burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means".
Google came up with an innovation called the PageRank algorithmGoogle filed a patent, and therefore had to explain the PageRank algorithm in great detail so that nearly any programmer could implement the algorithm.
Google didn't need to disclose the algorithm, they could have protected it by keeping inhouse as a trade secret. Now exactly what benefit did we get by the disclosure of the algorithm? Other search engines are looking for algorithms they consider better, like Bing, and by the tyme Google's patents expire it's likely there will be better algorithms.
Actually patents allow businesses to stagnate because they have a monopoly, it's mainly by competition that there is progress. Even in the open source community. The more a developer/programmer contributes to a project the more valuable s/he is to an employer. If that doesn't matter then there's bragging rights, "I contributed more than others have." Or the person could be compeating with him or her self.
Actually that's how we all improve. Because of an injury I survived I have a disability. Sometimes I congratulate myself for living through another day, other days I try to do better and or more than I did before. For instance for the first tyme in about 10 years I went rollerblading today. Though all I did was the length of the block and back when I got back I felt better than when I left. Tomorrow I'll try again, this tyme instead of going down one street and back I'll try to go around the block. If so then I can enjoy a sense of accomplishment. The same the day after and so on.
couldn't we fix the patent system so it doesn't hinder innovation?
And how do we do that? Get any 10 people together and you'll have more than 10 opinions. No, that's all backwards, instead how about proving patents are needed. It should be required to prove a monopoly is needed before it's granted.
if I were such an inventor and saw an invention I was the first to invent in Walmart without any compensation to me, I would feel wronged.
You would have first mover advantage. If I were to invent something I could then take my idea to a business like a fab. I go to Fab ABC and say I would like them to manufacture something I invented. Fab ABC asks to see it and I say only if you sign an NDA, non-disclosure agreement. they sign it so I show them my invention. They like it and say they can make it for X dollars. If I agree, okay we sign a contract, if not then I go to Fab XYZ.
After seeing my work Fab XYZ then asks me to invent something that does something else. That's what happens every day, employers pay employees to perform X work, in this case it's inventing things.
However, thinking about areas of science and technology where the cost of entry is high, the need for patent protection becomes clearer. Without sufficient protection, products that require substantial R&D expenditures are less likely to be developed because the developed product can then be produced by competitors. This is most evident in the field of pharmaceuticals, with the constant push-and-shove between developers and generics.
Pharmaceuticalpatents aren't needed either. There are two facts many people don't know about pharmaceutical businesses. They spend more on marketing than research. And the biggest cost of new drugs is testing to get FDA approval not development. Clinical testing for FDA approval can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.
Hay, that sounds like closed source proprietary software. CA, Microsoft, and Oracle all make money selling closed source proprietary software.
Software is already copyrightable; there's no need for it to be patentable as well
People who say that usually don't understand the difference between copyright and patents. Copyright protection is weak because it protects only the exact representation of the product. Patents, however, are much broader and protect the entire concept behind the idea.
You are the one with the misunderstanding. Although corporations get away with broad patents now, it used to be that only specific implementations of an idea was patentable. If two or more people invented things that did the same thing but were not made the same then each one could be patented. Since car analogies are commonly used I'll use one myself. Take apart a car engine, most are made differently but operate the same way. Look at the different parts, for instance the alternator. The alternator from a Ford will have a plate with a patent number while one from a Chevy will have a plate with a different patent number. They both work in the same general way though, only the specific implementation is different.
Falcon
BTW, I also used a car analogue here because I have experience working on and repairing cars. But a CPU could be used too. Take an Intel and an AMD CPU, they both are patented. They can both be patented because the implementation not the concept is what is patented.
It is bad news. You've just been brainwashed by the thousands of stories in the media about how patents are bad that bad news looks good to you.
Patents allow inventors to earn a living. How is making money by creating valuable things bad?
It is good news, you're the one who's been brainwashed. Though it uses copyrights not patents open source is a good example of people making a living without a monopoly. People and businesses make money by offering buyers something they are willing to pay for. And seeing as how this specific discussion is about software patents, economists say "Pro-softpatent analysts have yet to find benefit from software patents". More than one economic paper or study has concluded patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. For more scholarly papers check out Google scholar. Of course many of those papers have to be paid for to read, with Research on Innovation having more. As a practical example take Apple, although other companies make and sell portable music players and smart phones Apple still leads the markets with the iPod and iPhone. Even after another company has released product X Apple can come along, release it's own version, then dominate the market.
Falcon
Full disclosure, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro however my music player is an old Sony Walkman CD player and my cell-phone's a Nokia. I love my Mac but have no interest in getting either an iPhone or an iPod. If I ever get a smart phone it may have Android, then again I don't plan getting one. I don't know if I'll ever get an mpg3 player either. I might when my Walkman dies but I'[m not sure what.
Re:What about when Novell starts abusing their
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 1
unless and until you educate yourself enough to know the difference between a patent and a copyright, your opinion on whether software patents should be allowed is not valid.
I know the differences between copyrights and patents, do you?
Software isn't patentable. But isn't a clever and non-obvious algorithm an invention that could deserve patent protection?
No, math should not be patentable. Only physical object should be patentable.
Falcon
Actually I support abolishing all patents. I'm not sure about copyright monopolies. The reproduction costs of words, images, and other media are low relative to the cost of the original object. So they may deserve limited monopolies.
Originally to be granted a patent in the US a working model had to be submitted to the patent office, so no a concept wasn't patentable. Only specific implementations were.
one of the stories my grandfather told me about when his unit was helping to liberate the camps.
I never did know or talk with anyone who was in one of the liberation units but I met and talked with a concentration camp survivor. I don't know about all of them but some of her family didn't survive. She was Jewish but not all of those who were being systematically eliminated were Jews. Other groups targeted were Roma or Gypsies and the handicapped.
What's most don't know, have never heard of, is that the NAZIs' goal wasn't to kill all Jews but to rid Europe of them. NAZIs actually helped Jews emigrate, leave Europe. As late as 1940 NAZIs helped Jews move to Palestine.
I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary. Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency.
No, we don't need anything like this power given to government or anyone. We don't need another J Edgar Hoover, his extensive secret files, or COINTELPRO.
Neither businesses, criminals, nor terrorists are the greatest threat to liberty, government is the greatest threat to liberty.
So the president can make and put into action such a plan but this is not an expansion of existing authorities? Since when did the president have authority to censor speech?
When he got the right to round up innocent Americans and inter them.
What's really needed is for elected officials to be accountable on the local scale. How many people does each House member represent? It used to be 30,000... now it's roughly 500,000. Even at the state level, legislators do not need to answer to their communities. NJ has approximately 8,000,000 people and 40 state senators -- that's one senator per 200,000 people. The ratio is high enough that mass media overpowers community accountability.
What's really needed is less government not more.
Federal Senators/Reps being required to spend 320 days a year in their home state
You know what I'd like to see? A new amendment that like the Texas Constitution does limits how long congress is in session. In Texas the legislature only spends 140 days every other year in session. In a post I made a few minutes ago I suggested 120 days for a regular session, now combining that with your proposal to use technology for remote sessions, then the citizen's congress could spend even less tyme in Washington. Say 60 days, then if they need or want to they can a full-time job doing something else. Say farming or running a business. If they are someone else's employee then require that employer to give them unpaid tyme off. Employers already are required to do this for those in the National Guard or Reserves so it shouldn't be a hardship for the employer.
Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic. Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.
No, the emphasis should be on the individual and personal responsibility.
First step? Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.
No, first step repeal Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Second step, ratify the 29th amendment which shall state:
Congress shall be limited to one regular session every other year for not more than 120 days. The President shall be able to call for a special session that will focus on one specific topic if needed.
Additionally the 30th amendment shall be ratified stating each bill proposed by congress shall be about one topic only, that it not be more than X pages (somewhere less than the 1000s of pages now, say not more than 10 or 20), and that the average adult can understand it. None of this burying government run student loans in health insurance bills.
The 31th amendment shall require a sunset provision for every new law, congress and the president would have to vote, approve, and sign new laws every 4 years say. If a law is not renewed then it is removes from the law-books.
You can try to change the world, and people should, but that does not mean you or they will be successful.
Sidney Poitier said something like that in the movie "To Sir With Love". In it he says it's the students' responsibility to try to change the world, but like the in the Beatles' song Revolution, they have to do it peacefully.
Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism". It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.
Yes and no. Can I go to the airport, pay cash for a ticket, and hop on a plane to go anywhere I feel like whenever I do feel like it without showing ID? No but 30 years ago I couldn't either. Now we have any number of ways to communicate with others we didn't have before. I recall one place I lived the phone service we had was a party line, I could pick up the phone to call someone and hearing the next door neighbor on the phone I knew I'd have to wait for them to finish before I could make my call. Today I don't need a land-line phone, actually the only phone I have is my cell-phone. I can take it with me and it's cheaper than the land-line phone service I used to have. Now if only I was able to use it for wireless broadband access too. I can't, though my sister has wireless broadband. I haven't found it yet but Reason magazine had an article on this in a print issue, whether we're freer or less free today.
Slashdot Mirror
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Nope, the corporate aristocracy listened to Thomas Jefferson. Now they just buy lawmakers and those who enforce the laws.
Falcon
then what's the problem with it?
"Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers".
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
If you have nothing to hide, you have everything to fear.
Falcon
The border crossing - the military check point - has never been a good place to assert your rights to anything.
I doubt most fights in the US cross the national border.
Falcon
airlines are a private industry - there's nothing that states they have to let you fly.
Therein lies the rub, individual airlines should be the ones to set security procedures not the government. I as a passenger should be able to decide if I want to board an airline's flight that requires ID or one that does not. If an airlines wants to do an anal exam, they should be allowed to require one. Then if a passenger doesn't like that requirement s/he could then fly on an airliner that does not require it. Oh, and there's nothing that states government can't prevent passengers from flying either.
If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution.
Can you point out to be where in the Constitution of the USA it limits rights to only US citizens? Here's what James Madison had to say about Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens. Thomas Jefferson said "An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." It would have been quite easy for the Founding Fathers to exclude foreigners from having rights too, but did they? No! They said the opposite.
Falcon
What additional freedoms do you think Americans have? I felt more "free" when I lived in New Zealand - I wasn't tied to a job for health insurance,
Unfortunately there is no free market in health insurance in the US. And there hasn't been sense World War II. Some of us have been fighting for the freedom though.
I wasn't drug tested when I applied for a job,
Some of us have also been fighting to end the War on Drugs. Either politicians haven't learned from Prohibition or they have ulterior motives. Hemp, marijuana, was made illegal only because wealthy and powerful industrialists in the US saw it as a threat. Opium was first made illegal in the City of San Francisco in 1872 because of "anti-Chinese hostility", Chinese were the major users of opium.
I was free to walk barefoot in a shop,
As was I while I lived in Florida.
I didn't have to deal with the massive bureaucracy of health care and taxes here
America has no free market in health insurance, and there is little competition between insurance companies.
I knew that if I lost my job I would get a little help from society until I was back on my feet again
"Unemployment compensation is money received by an unemployed worker from the United States or a state."
Falcon
All too often throughout history, there are examples of freedoms lost because the people were unable to (effectively) fight, usually accomplished by outlawing weaponry for the general populace (swords/spears/bows/crossbows back long ago, guns today).
I don't think liberty and freedom will be lost in the USA because of ineffectiveness in fighting to keep them but because of apathy. We've had generations live who have not had to fight and losing a little liberty here and there is just so "ho, hum".
This is why the citizens of the U.S. keep requiring the right to bear arms
Unfortunately it's small groups who keep fighting, other than the NRA, the fight to keep the right to bare arms. And some of those groups give the rest black eyes, such as the militia group in Michigan in the news now. Gun control advocates have about as much if not more influence.
Falcon
he was not a terrorist. I think since 9/11 we throw that term around too loosely.
"Terrorism" was used improperly before 9/11. Ecoterrorism was used in 1998 by "The Washington Times".
Falcon
[T]he Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening...
They're actually now trying to correlate security screening with specific, known information about actual suspects, rather than saying, "So you're from Pakistan? Would you mind coming with me, sir?" The new policies will be far from perfect, I'm sure, but they seem more sensible than a "random" screening based solely on nationality.
Yea, it's imperfect. Not only that but the Constitution of the USA does not give the federal government these powers.
Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Fair enough, but I think the founding fathers would also have had a difficult time envisioning several dozen unrelated people climbing into a flying metal tube to cross the ocean in a matter of hours. They also probably didn't foresee the rise of ideologies that make those flying tubes attractive targets for persons armed with concealable explosive devices. Saying that the Founding Fathers were poorly-versed in 21st century technology and geopolitics doesn't mean much by itself. I'm willing to bet the passengers on any of the airplanes that have been subject to terrorist attacks in the past few years would have been willing to undergo a full body scan if it meant the bad guy couldn't get on the plane with them.
Then amend the Constitution. Don't treat it like TP. As for what the Founding father envisioning, they easily envisioned government goons knocking down doors and dragging away the people inside. As for terrorists, as President, Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to fight Barbary pirates in North Africa. Between them and what the British did the Founding Fathers knew what the enemy was capable of. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton of the Green Dragoon wasn't known as a butcher for nothing, he "practiced total war -- burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means".
Falcon
Google came up with an innovation called the PageRank algorithmGoogle filed a patent, and therefore had to explain the PageRank algorithm in great detail so that nearly any programmer could implement the algorithm.
Google didn't need to disclose the algorithm, they could have protected it by keeping inhouse as a trade secret. Now exactly what benefit did we get by the disclosure of the algorithm? Other search engines are looking for algorithms they consider better, like Bing, and by the tyme Google's patents expire it's likely there will be better algorithms.
Actually patents allow businesses to stagnate because they have a monopoly, it's mainly by competition that there is progress. Even in the open source community. The more a developer/programmer contributes to a project the more valuable s/he is to an employer. If that doesn't matter then there's bragging rights, "I contributed more than others have." Or the person could be compeating with him or her self.
Actually that's how we all improve. Because of an injury I survived I have a disability. Sometimes I congratulate myself for living through another day, other days I try to do better and or more than I did before. For instance for the first tyme in about 10 years I went rollerblading today. Though all I did was the length of the block and back when I got back I felt better than when I left. Tomorrow I'll try again, this tyme instead of going down one street and back I'll try to go around the block. If so then I can enjoy a sense of accomplishment. The same the day after and so on.
Falcon
couldn't we fix the patent system so it doesn't hinder innovation?
And how do we do that? Get any 10 people together and you'll have more than 10 opinions. No, that's all backwards, instead how about proving patents are needed. It should be required to prove a monopoly is needed before it's granted.
Falcon
I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation. (My money is on 'hinder'.)
Some economists agree, patents hinder progress. And for patents other than just software.
Falcon
if I were such an inventor and saw an invention I was the first to invent in Walmart without any compensation to me, I would feel wronged.
You would have first mover advantage. If I were to invent something I could then take my idea to a business like a fab. I go to Fab ABC and say I would like them to manufacture something I invented. Fab ABC asks to see it and I say only if you sign an NDA, non-disclosure agreement. they sign it so I show them my invention. They like it and say they can make it for X dollars. If I agree, okay we sign a contract, if not then I go to Fab XYZ.
After seeing my work Fab XYZ then asks me to invent something that does something else. That's what happens every day, employers pay employees to perform X work, in this case it's inventing things.
However, thinking about areas of science and technology where the cost of entry is high, the need for patent protection becomes clearer. Without sufficient protection, products that require substantial R&D expenditures are less likely to be developed because the developed product can then be produced by competitors. This is most evident in the field of pharmaceuticals, with the constant push-and-shove between developers and generics.
Pharmaceutical patents aren't needed either. There are two facts many people don't know about pharmaceutical businesses. They spend more on marketing than research. And the biggest cost of new drugs is testing to get FDA approval not development. Clinical testing for FDA approval can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Falcon
Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.
Hay, that sounds like closed source proprietary software. CA, Microsoft, and Oracle all make money selling closed source proprietary software.
Falcon
Software is already copyrightable; there's no need for it to be patentable as well
People who say that usually don't understand the difference between copyright and patents. Copyright protection is weak because it protects only the exact representation of the product. Patents, however, are much broader and protect the entire concept behind the idea.
You are the one with the misunderstanding. Although corporations get away with broad patents now, it used to be that only specific implementations of an idea was patentable. If two or more people invented things that did the same thing but were not made the same then each one could be patented. Since car analogies are commonly used I'll use one myself. Take apart a car engine, most are made differently but operate the same way. Look at the different parts, for instance the alternator. The alternator from a Ford will have a plate with a patent number while one from a Chevy will have a plate with a different patent number. They both work in the same general way though, only the specific implementation is different.
Falcon
BTW, I also used a car analogue here because I have experience working on and repairing cars. But a CPU could be used too. Take an Intel and an AMD CPU, they both are patented. They can both be patented because the implementation not the concept is what is patented.
It is bad news. You've just been brainwashed by the thousands of stories in the media about how patents are bad that bad news looks good to you.
Patents allow inventors to earn a living. How is making money by creating valuable things bad?
It is good news, you're the one who's been brainwashed. Though it uses copyrights not patents open source is a good example of people making a living without a monopoly. People and businesses make money by offering buyers something they are willing to pay for. And seeing as how this specific discussion is about software patents, economists say "Pro-softpatent analysts have yet to find benefit from software patents". More than one economic paper or study has concluded patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. For more scholarly papers check out Google scholar. Of course many of those papers have to be paid for to read, with Research on Innovation having more. As a practical example take Apple, although other companies make and sell portable music players and smart phones Apple still leads the markets with the iPod and iPhone. Even after another company has released product X Apple can come along, release it's own version, then dominate the market.
Falcon
Full disclosure, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro however my music player is an old Sony Walkman CD player and my cell-phone's a Nokia. I love my Mac but have no interest in getting either an iPhone or an iPod. If I ever get a smart phone it may have Android, then again I don't plan getting one. I don't know if I'll ever get an mpg3 player either. I might when my Walkman dies but I'[m not sure what.
unless and until you educate yourself enough to know the difference between a patent and a copyright, your opinion on whether software patents should be allowed is not valid.
I know the differences between copyrights and patents, do you?
Falcon
Software isn't patentable. But isn't a clever and non-obvious algorithm an invention that could deserve patent protection?
No, math should not be patentable. Only physical object should be patentable.
Falcon
Actually I support abolishing all patents. I'm not sure about copyright monopolies. The reproduction costs of words, images, and other media are low relative to the cost of the original object. So they may deserve limited monopolies.
Falcon
Originally to be granted a patent in the US a working model had to be submitted to the patent office, so no a concept wasn't patentable. Only specific implementations were.
Falcon
one of the stories my grandfather told me about when his unit was helping to liberate the camps.
I never did know or talk with anyone who was in one of the liberation units but I met and talked with a concentration camp survivor. I don't know about all of them but some of her family didn't survive. She was Jewish but not all of those who were being systematically eliminated were Jews. Other groups targeted were Roma or Gypsies and the handicapped.
What's most don't know, have never heard of, is that the NAZIs' goal wasn't to kill all Jews but to rid Europe of them. NAZIs actually helped Jews emigrate, leave Europe. As late as 1940 NAZIs helped Jews move to Palestine.
Falcon
I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary. Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency.
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA, can issue a warrant within hours. Heck the law even allows the Attorney General or his designee to notify the court up to 72 hours after the fact.
No, we don't need anything like this power given to government or anyone. We don't need another J Edgar Hoover, his extensive secret files, or COINTELPRO.
Neither businesses, criminals, nor terrorists are the greatest threat to liberty, government is the greatest threat to liberty.
Falcon
So the president can make and put into action such a plan but this is not an expansion of existing authorities? Since when did the president have authority to censor speech?
When he got the right to round up innocent Americans and inter them.
Yeap, that was Abe Lincoln.
Falcon
What's really needed is for elected officials to be accountable on the local scale. How many people does each House member represent? It used to be 30,000... now it's roughly 500,000. Even at the state level, legislators do not need to answer to their communities. NJ has approximately 8,000,000 people and 40 state senators -- that's one senator per 200,000 people. The ratio is high enough that mass media overpowers community accountability.
What's really needed is less government not more.
Federal Senators/Reps being required to spend 320 days a year in their home state
You know what I'd like to see? A new amendment that like the Texas Constitution does limits how long congress is in session. In Texas the legislature only spends 140 days every other year in session. In a post I made a few minutes ago I suggested 120 days for a regular session, now combining that with your proposal to use technology for remote sessions, then the citizen's congress could spend even less tyme in Washington. Say 60 days, then if they need or want to they can a full-time job doing something else. Say farming or running a business. If they are someone else's employee then require that employer to give them unpaid tyme off. Employers already are required to do this for those in the National Guard or Reserves so it shouldn't be a hardship for the employer.
Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic. Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.
No, the emphasis should be on the individual and personal responsibility.
First step? Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.
No, first step repeal Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Second step, ratify the 29th amendment which shall state:
Congress shall be limited to one regular session every other year for not more than 120 days. The President shall be able to call for a special session that will focus on one specific topic if needed.
Additionally the 30th amendment shall be ratified stating each bill proposed by congress shall be about one topic only, that it not be more than X pages (somewhere less than the 1000s of pages now, say not more than 10 or 20), and that the average adult can understand it. None of this burying government run student loans in health insurance bills.
The 31th amendment shall require a sunset provision for every new law, congress and the president would have to vote, approve, and sign new laws every 4 years say. If a law is not renewed then it is removes from the law-books.
Falcon
You can try to change the world, and people should, but that does not mean you or they will be successful.
Sidney Poitier said something like that in the movie "To Sir With Love". In it he says it's the students' responsibility to try to change the world, but like the in the Beatles' song Revolution, they have to do it peacefully.
Falcon
Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism". It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.
Yes and no. Can I go to the airport, pay cash for a ticket, and hop on a plane to go anywhere I feel like whenever I do feel like it without showing ID? No but 30 years ago I couldn't either. Now we have any number of ways to communicate with others we didn't have before. I recall one place I lived the phone service we had was a party line, I could pick up the phone to call someone and hearing the next door neighbor on the phone I knew I'd have to wait for them to finish before I could make my call. Today I don't need a land-line phone, actually the only phone I have is my cell-phone. I can take it with me and it's cheaper than the land-line phone service I used to have. Now if only I was able to use it for wireless broadband access too. I can't, though my sister has wireless broadband. I haven't found it yet but Reason magazine had an article on this in a print issue, whether we're freer or less free today.
Falcon