I'm not terribly convinced Jammie Thomas is a great case to fight the RIAA with;
Have I misunderstood the paperwork? reading between the lines it appears her lawyer is withdrawing and he is concerned that he has information contradictory to the line of argument his client wants put forward, and as an officer of the court, money matters aside, he feels he cannot go on.
I read it differently. The motion is filed for in camera review, because it contains information that would be of use to the plaintiff, so he wants to keep it limited to just the judge. It's quite common for a lawyer to have information that contradicts his "official" stance in the case, so such information by itself probably wouldn't constitute a reason to withdraw.
It appears that money *is* the primary factor here. Jammie Thomas owes him a lot of money, and even though she's promised to make payments, he doesn't want to allow her to dig herself in deeper. He tried once before to withdraw from the case, but the court refused him permission to do so. This may have had something to do with his rather lackluster performance during the previous trial...
It wasn't until Eddington observed that stars appeared to move during an eclipse that there was an experimental result that contradicted Newton but not Einstein.
Sorry, not an astronomer, but I was under the impression that the inability of Newtonian mechanics to properly account for the precession of Mercury was well known before Einstein's time...
You realise that when you spend years writing a book based on an entire lifetime's work, after all the struggles of publishing and promoting a book, 5 years seem like a blink of an eye to reap the fruits of your hard work.
You're aware that most book writers are little guys who hardly can even make a living out of it and wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the hope that their work could benefit them and their family durably? You realise that few book writers are Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, right? I don't even think you consider that side of things, I think you only consider your interests. (Disclaimer : my parents were book writers and struggled.)
And do you realize that overwhelming majority of books make the majority of their money within the first year of release? Long copyright terms generally benefit the King's and Rowling's far more that it does the average author...
That said, 5 years *is* a bit short. 20 years, or life of the author plus 10 years, whichever is *shorter*, sounds reasonable to me...
Actually, there's nothing wrong with the treaties. The issue is with the implementation of the laws by the governments.
For instance, the U.S. DMCA would be a reasonable law, if it actually had some penalties for misuse. As it is, various companies have routinely abused the DMCA (using it for trademarks, sending a new DMCA notice after a counter notice has been filed, etc).
The *only* penalty for misuse specified in the law is a possible charge of perjury for an attorney - a penalty that will never be applied, unless some lawyer is very high on a U.S. Attorney's shit list.
Now imagine that the *company* responsible for the DMCA notice could be subject to a substantial penalty every time it misuses that law (preferably a civil remedy, since for criminal penalties we have to wait for the government's attorneys to act).
There goes the argument that games are only pirated because companies insist on draconian DRM.
Now for the real question - how many of those 100k pirates *would* have paid for it legally, if they could have? Remember, the game wasn't available except from some retailers who jumped the gun on the release date...
Ummm The receiver is on the ground. You know, so it can receive the power from the sat. The sat. is shooting out the laser beam from orbit to ground.
So... if the sat rotates enough to be off target, then the ground based receiver can no longer see the laser, not the satellite like you said. Which still leaves the issue of, how do you tell the laser it's pointing wrong, fast enough to prevent it from messing other stuff up?
The only solution is to use some type of GPS system with a very fine precision, so the satellite can calculate its actual orientation instantly. The laser would also need to be mounted on some type of gyroscopic stabalizer, so that if the sat's orientation changes suddenly the laser will get blocked until the power can cut off.
I messed up with the word "receiver" on that one. Let me rephrase: Have a sensor on the satellite with a very limited field of view, and a laser (or maser, or maybe just a plain microwave beam) sent from the ground station to the satellite. If the satellite's orientation changes enough to cause it to miss the target, the sensor would no longer "see" the signal from the ground station, and trigger a shutdown of the power beam.
I tried to do the math, but spherical geometry isn't my strong point at this hour. I'm guessing it'd have to be closer to the poles to approach that 98% daylight exposure while geostationary, but even then it would require a pretty good altitude. That only adds to the difficulties casting a 200 MW beam back to Fresno. Disregardless, it's still very cool to see a utility distributor taking the idea seriously.
Remember, Earth wobbles on its axis as it goes around the sun (which is why we have seasons). A satellite in geosynchronous orbit over the equator is only in shadow for brief periods during the equinoxes...
The problem is that a laser beam doesn't go any faster than light speed, either.
The satellite would have to determine on its own whether it's still pointing the right way.
That's why I specified that the *receiver* have a very limited field of vision. If the satellite rotates enough to be off target, it can no longer see the laser. Thus no latency issues.
Apart from bugs in the satellite's software, there is a lot that can go wrong. But it would be a nice test case for anti-satellite warfare;)
We *can* create systems that are bug immune. Note that I didn't say "bug free" - take three different architectures, and have three different teams write the code for them. Connect them in a "majority rules" redundant configuration. The odds of two of them experiencing bugs at the same time (or of having a hardware failure) producing the same result at the same time is pretty, well, astronomical...
Then there's the option of using completely dissimilar systems. For example, have the laser concept from my other post, along with inertial sensors that trigger the cutoff if they detect any motion that doesn't correspond to actions of the attitude jets/gyroscopes.
It's just engineering. The only reason all systems aren't designed to be failsafe is that it makes them more expensive. For an Ipod, that matters. For a solar power satellite, it's a different ballgame.
Considering how far the beam might deviate in 250 ms, I think the reaction time should be made much, much short. Microseconds.
True - the reaction time should be shorter. So try this: The ground station is transmitting a laser signal, which the satellite receives using a system with a VERY limited field of vision. If the signal is interrupted, the power cuts off. That way if the satellite's orientation is disturbed enough to miss the receiver, it won't be able to see the laser...
The keep-alive idea I originally posted doesn't hold up on closer inspection - there's over 100ms of latency in a radio link from the Earth's surface to geosynchronous orbit...
I take it you never heard of the concept of "failsafe" systems? For instance - the ground station is transmitting a "keep alive" signal to the satellite once every 100ms. The satellite hardware is designed so that if the keep-alive isn't received after 250ms, it automatically cuts off the transmitter.
And the ground station is set so that if it detects the power beam moving over a certain distance off-center of the receiver, it cuts the keep-alive.
The only part of this concept that's "rocket science" is the business of getting the solar panels up there. The rest is just engineering (which engineers happen to be quite good at).
The marketing drones clearly decided that "expansion pack" or "add on" or other "English" phrases were too "understandable" for "humans" and so began employing this crappy acronym instead. Another favourite of mine is "SKU" which apparently means "thing for sale" or "item for sale", although I am unsure of its precise meaning.
Pollution of all sorts is a growing problem. And it's a problem that we need to address. With so much attention focused on Global Warming, how many other (more immediate) issues are being ignored?
From what I've read, I'd also disagree with the article that meat is so valuable to their diet. They LOVE meat, but other research suggests that the amount of energy expended on hunting compared to what they gain in protein/food is a net negative. Hunting is also high risk and includes getting injured in the process.
What about the protein gain for the female, exclusive of the male's effort? A higher protein diet would be a big survival advantage for pregnant/nursing females, as well as for developing offspring.
So the balance may be against the hunter (he has to not only hunt the meat, but also gather other food to offset the net energy loss from the hunting), but may improve the survival probabilities of the female/offspring, which would in turn improve the chances of the male's DNA surviving.
I don't remember too many American pilots involved in the Battle of Britain for example.
Perhaps you should study a bit more history. Start here. By the time the U.S. actually became officially involved in the war, the RAF had three *squadrons* flown exclusively by U.S. pilots...
That's kinda the point. If you call them 'sir' then it legitimises the thinking that "carrying a gun = creation of authority". If you treat them like an ordinary public servant, it emphasises that "carrying a gun = part of your job and not the thing which gives you any power over me."
I.e., their power comes from the law, not from the fact that they wear mirrored sunglasses and can hypothetically kill you.
No - their *authority* does derive from the law. But that authority is useless without the power to back it up. And at the root, the power of the police (and via the police and military, all of government) stems from the gun.
They should be calling you sir. You should be dealing with them in a polite but not deferential manner. Otherwise you are recognising that they hold some form of authority 'at large' over you, rather than merely an authority which is activated by a combination of the valid application of democratically passed laws and your conduct.
As a rule, police *do* address people as sir/ma'am (until/unless people start getting belligerent, at which point it becomes "scumbag":)).
As for recognizing that they hold some form of authority over you, well, there's an old joke: Q. What do you call a six foot negro with a seven foot spear? A. Sir!
The simple fact that police carry lethal weapons has more than a little to do with the "sirs"...
This is utterly ridiculous. It's not like work on an open source project is comparable to giving away money, or hand-built widgets. Nobody is going to say "gee, I would normally contribute this code to that open source project, but I'm unemployed, so I'll sell it to buy groceries instead."
I know you're right, but could you explain the economic reality in a bit more detail, for the uninitiated like myself who are as knowledgeable? Thanks.
The reality is that only a very small percentage of open source programmers actually *live* off of open source programming. The overwhelming majority of contributors to OSS projects are employed doing other things (usually but not always computer related), and simply code for the fun of it. Being unemployed will have minimal effect on these contributors (unless their financial situation reaches a point where they can't afford an internet connection any more, that is). "Looking for a job" is *not* an 8 hour a day, 5 day a week task, so these people may have even *more* time than they did before to work on OSS.
This economy will probably put a dent in the number of jobs where employers willingly allow employees to work on OSS projects during working hours (and given standard management techniques in the tech sector, which includes "reducing headcount" and "pile the extra work on the remaining employees", there will probably be a reduction the number of non-working hours employees have as well), so the still-employed may contribute less than before.
But the notion of "I'm unemployed so I can't do any OSS stuff" is pretty ludicrous...
If a poster on a forum posted information on where to find Barack Obama, and a death threat, would you expect the server that hosted that forum to be seized?
Hardly. I would expect a judicial order requiring the post to be removed, and then that the Secret Service would monitor that service to see if any further posts were made by that individual. By seizing the server (and shutting down the service), the police blocked a potential source of further leads as to the identity of the person. In short, a panic reaction, rather than a reasoned reaction.
The SHAC protesters broke the law, and are now - rightly - in jail. The person who posted the judge's personal information and a death threat against him also broke the law.
The SHAC protesters are in jail. The poster will be in jail, if they can find him/her. Fine. Now explain to me what law the server owners/operators broke, that resulting in their server (and service) being "thrown in jail".
Because the police and prosecutor are so likely to file and pursue a theft and vandalism charge for a $2 notebook. That'll fly like a lead balloon.
It doesn't matter if the prosecutor actually pursues the case - the fact that a police report has been filed is a point for the reporters to latch onto. And if the DA sees the case as beneficial to whatever political cause(s) he/she supports, then something may actually happen...
IANAL either, but the 5th amendment only protects against self-incrimination. Anyone else, even your SO, you can be ordered to testify against.
IANAL either, but IIRC, a wife/husband can *not* testify (voluntarily or otherwise) against his/her spouse and relate information told to him/her "in confidence" by the spouse. Information given to a spouse is deems "privileged", the same as information a person gives to an attorney or therapist. I *think* that evidence can be suppressed if it was obtained in violation of "spousal privilege" (for instance, if a husband tells his wife where he hid the gun, and she tells the police, the gun may be deemed inadmissible as evidence).
The spouse *can* testify (voluntarily or otherwise), but only regarding things that he/she witnessed. For instance, a spouse can be forced to answer the question "Did you see your spouse hit the neighbor with a baseball bat?".
2) Pornography is considered an artistic expression and the US constitution and Canadian charter among other bill of rights in other countries protect free speech. In the 70's there were supreme court cases in the US that helped set precedent protecting pornography under the federal-granted right to free speech.
Which, if taken to it's logical conclusion, would mean that prostitution itself is protected. After all, what is prostitution, if not "performance art"?
By your logic, the US would become a much better place if all the States became sovereign nations. They're already the size of nations. Heck, there's three sovereign nations in Europe that could each fit inside Rhode Island.
The original plan laid down by the Founding Father's had the states as something more than administrative districts, but something less than sovereign nations. So that most of went on within a state's boundaries was governed by the state, and the federal government only dealt with matters that genuinely crossed state lines.
Then we had a Civil War, in which the issue of states' rights became entangled with the issue of slavery. And as a result we now have an all-powerful federal government, and the states *have* been reduced to little more than administrative districts.
I suspect we *would* be better off if the US was more like the EU, with states actually having some degree of independence. Large, central governments are *much* easier for special interests to manipulate, since far fewer people have to be convinced (or bribed).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not terribly convinced Jammie Thomas is a great case to fight the RIAA with;
Have I misunderstood the paperwork? reading between the lines it appears her lawyer is withdrawing and he is concerned that he has information contradictory to the line of argument his client wants put forward, and as an officer of the court, money matters aside, he feels he cannot go on.
I read it differently. The motion is filed for in camera review, because it contains information that would be of use to the plaintiff, so he wants to keep it limited to just the judge. It's quite common for a lawyer to have information that contradicts his "official" stance in the case, so such information by itself probably wouldn't constitute a reason to withdraw.
It appears that money *is* the primary factor here. Jammie Thomas owes him a lot of money, and even though she's promised to make payments, he doesn't want to allow her to dig herself in deeper. He tried once before to withdraw from the case, but the court refused him permission to do so. This may have had something to do with his rather lackluster performance during the previous trial...
It wasn't until Eddington observed that stars appeared to move during an eclipse that there was an experimental result that contradicted Newton but not Einstein.
Sorry, not an astronomer, but I was under the impression that the inability of Newtonian mechanics to properly account for the precession of Mercury was well known before Einstein's time...
You realise that when you spend years writing a book based on an entire lifetime's work, after all the struggles of publishing and promoting a book, 5 years seem like a blink of an eye to reap the fruits of your hard work.
You're aware that most book writers are little guys who hardly can even make a living out of it and wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the hope that their work could benefit them and their family durably? You realise that few book writers are Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, right? I don't even think you consider that side of things, I think you only consider your interests. (Disclaimer : my parents were book writers and struggled.)
And do you realize that overwhelming majority of books make the majority of their money within the first year of release? Long copyright terms generally benefit the King's and Rowling's far more that it does the average author...
That said, 5 years *is* a bit short. 20 years, or life of the author plus 10 years, whichever is *shorter*, sounds reasonable to me...
Actually, there's nothing wrong with the treaties. The issue is with the implementation of the laws by the governments.
For instance, the U.S. DMCA would be a reasonable law, if it actually had some penalties for misuse. As it is, various companies have routinely abused the DMCA (using it for trademarks, sending a new DMCA notice after a counter notice has been filed, etc).
The *only* penalty for misuse specified in the law is a possible charge of perjury for an attorney - a penalty that will never be applied, unless some lawyer is very high on a U.S. Attorney's shit list.
Now imagine that the *company* responsible for the DMCA notice could be subject to a substantial penalty every time it misuses that law (preferably a civil remedy, since for criminal penalties we have to wait for the government's attorneys to act).
There goes the argument that games are only pirated because companies insist on draconian DRM.
Now for the real question - how many of those 100k pirates *would* have paid for it legally, if they could have? Remember, the game wasn't available except from some retailers who jumped the gun on the release date...
Ummm The receiver is on the ground. You know, so it can receive the power from the sat.
The sat. is shooting out the laser beam from orbit to ground.
So... if the sat rotates enough to be off target, then the ground based receiver can no longer see the laser, not the satellite like you said. Which still leaves the issue of, how do you tell the laser it's pointing wrong, fast enough to prevent it from messing other stuff up?
The only solution is to use some type of GPS system with a very fine precision, so the satellite can calculate its actual orientation instantly.
The laser would also need to be mounted on some type of gyroscopic stabalizer, so that if the sat's orientation changes suddenly the laser will get blocked until the power can cut off.
I messed up with the word "receiver" on that one. Let me rephrase:
Have a sensor on the satellite with a very limited field of view, and a laser (or maser, or maybe just a plain microwave beam) sent from the ground station to the satellite. If the satellite's orientation changes enough to cause it to miss the target, the sensor would no longer "see" the signal from the ground station, and trigger a shutdown of the power beam.
I tried to do the math, but spherical geometry isn't my strong point at this hour. I'm guessing it'd have to be closer to the poles to approach that 98% daylight exposure while geostationary, but even then it would require a pretty good altitude. That only adds to the difficulties casting a 200 MW beam back to Fresno. Disregardless, it's still very cool to see a utility distributor taking the idea seriously.
Remember, Earth wobbles on its axis as it goes around the sun (which is why we have seasons). A satellite in geosynchronous orbit over the equator is only in shadow for brief periods during the equinoxes...
The problem is that a laser beam doesn't go any faster than light speed, either.
The satellite would have to determine on its own whether it's still pointing the right way.
That's why I specified that the *receiver* have a very limited field of vision. If the satellite rotates enough to be off target, it can no longer see the laser. Thus no latency issues.
Apart from bugs in the satellite's software, there is a lot that can go wrong. But it would be a nice test case for anti-satellite warfare ;)
We *can* create systems that are bug immune. Note that I didn't say "bug free" - take three different architectures, and have three different teams write the code for them. Connect them in a "majority rules" redundant configuration. The odds of two of them experiencing bugs at the same time (or of having a hardware failure) producing the same result at the same time is pretty, well, astronomical...
Then there's the option of using completely dissimilar systems. For example, have the laser concept from my other post, along with inertial sensors that trigger the cutoff if they detect any motion that doesn't correspond to actions of the attitude jets/gyroscopes.
It's just engineering. The only reason all systems aren't designed to be failsafe is that it makes them more expensive. For an Ipod, that matters. For a solar power satellite, it's a different ballgame.
Considering how far the beam might deviate in 250 ms, I think the reaction time should be made much, much short. Microseconds.
True - the reaction time should be shorter. So try this: The ground station is transmitting a laser signal, which the satellite receives using a system with a VERY limited field of vision. If the signal is interrupted, the power cuts off. That way if the satellite's orientation is disturbed enough to miss the receiver, it won't be able to see the laser...
The keep-alive idea I originally posted doesn't hold up on closer inspection - there's over 100ms of latency in a radio link from the Earth's surface to geosynchronous orbit...
I take it you never heard of the concept of "failsafe" systems? For instance - the ground station is transmitting a "keep alive" signal to the satellite once every 100ms. The satellite hardware is designed so that if the keep-alive isn't received after 250ms, it automatically cuts off the transmitter.
And the ground station is set so that if it detects the power beam moving over a certain distance off-center of the receiver, it cuts the keep-alive.
The only part of this concept that's "rocket science" is the business of getting the solar panels up there. The rest is just engineering (which engineers happen to be quite good at).
The marketing drones clearly decided that "expansion pack" or "add on" or other "English" phrases were too "understandable" for "humans" and so began employing this crappy acronym instead. Another favourite of mine is "SKU" which apparently means "thing for sale" or "item for sale", although I am unsure of its precise meaning.
SKU = "Stock-Keeping Unit".
Wish I had mod points - you deserve some...
Pollution of all sorts is a growing problem. And it's a problem that we need to address. With so much attention focused on Global Warming, how many other (more immediate) issues are being ignored?
From what I've read, I'd also disagree with the article that meat is so valuable to their diet. They LOVE meat, but other research suggests that the amount of energy expended on hunting compared to what they gain in protein/food is a net negative. Hunting is also high risk and includes getting injured in the process.
What about the protein gain for the female, exclusive of the male's effort? A higher protein diet would be a big survival advantage for pregnant/nursing females, as well as for developing offspring.
So the balance may be against the hunter (he has to not only hunt the meat, but also gather other food to offset the net energy loss from the hunting), but may improve the survival probabilities of the female/offspring, which would in turn improve the chances of the male's DNA surviving.
I don't remember too many American pilots involved in the Battle of Britain for example.
Perhaps you should study a bit more history. Start here. By the time the U.S. actually became officially involved in the war, the RAF had three *squadrons* flown exclusively by U.S. pilots...
That's kinda the point. If you call them 'sir' then it legitimises the thinking that "carrying a gun = creation of authority". If you treat them like an ordinary public servant, it emphasises that "carrying a gun = part of your job and not the thing which gives you any power over me."
I.e., their power comes from the law, not from the fact that they wear mirrored sunglasses and can hypothetically kill you.
No - their *authority* does derive from the law. But that authority is useless without the power to back it up. And at the root, the power of the police (and via the police and military, all of government) stems from the gun.
They should be calling you sir. You should be dealing with them in a polite but not deferential manner. Otherwise you are recognising that they hold some form of authority 'at large' over you, rather than merely an authority which is activated by a combination of the valid application of democratically passed laws and your conduct.
As a rule, police *do* address people as sir/ma'am (until/unless people start getting belligerent, at which point it becomes "scumbag" :)).
As for recognizing that they hold some form of authority over you, well, there's an old joke:
Q. What do you call a six foot negro with a seven foot spear?
A. Sir!
The simple fact that police carry lethal weapons has more than a little to do with the "sirs"...
They could do the eye, skin, and hair color.
People need something to live off
This is utterly ridiculous. It's not like work on an open source project is comparable to giving away money, or hand-built widgets. Nobody is going to say "gee, I would normally contribute this code to that open source project, but I'm unemployed, so I'll sell it to buy groceries instead."
I know you're right, but could you explain the economic reality in a bit more detail, for the uninitiated like myself who are as knowledgeable? Thanks.
The reality is that only a very small percentage of open source programmers actually *live* off of open source programming. The overwhelming majority of contributors to OSS projects are employed doing other things (usually but not always computer related), and simply code for the fun of it. Being unemployed will have minimal effect on these contributors (unless their financial situation reaches a point where they can't afford an internet connection any more, that is). "Looking for a job" is *not* an 8 hour a day, 5 day a week task, so these people may have even *more* time than they did before to work on OSS.
This economy will probably put a dent in the number of jobs where employers willingly allow employees to work on OSS projects during working hours (and given standard management techniques in the tech sector, which includes "reducing headcount" and "pile the extra work on the remaining employees", there will probably be a reduction the number of non-working hours employees have as well), so the still-employed may contribute less than before.
But the notion of "I'm unemployed so I can't do any OSS stuff" is pretty ludicrous...
If a poster on a forum posted information on where to find Barack Obama, and a death threat, would you expect the server that hosted that forum to be seized?
Hardly. I would expect a judicial order requiring the post to be removed, and then that the Secret Service would monitor that service to see if any further posts were made by that individual. By seizing the server (and shutting down the service), the police blocked a potential source of further leads as to the identity of the person. In short, a panic reaction, rather than a reasoned reaction.
The SHAC protesters broke the law, and are now - rightly - in jail. The person who posted the judge's personal information and a death threat against him also broke the law.
The SHAC protesters are in jail. The poster will be in jail, if they can find him/her. Fine. Now explain to me what law the server owners/operators broke, that resulting in their server (and service) being "thrown in jail".
Because the police and prosecutor are so likely to file and pursue a theft and vandalism charge for a $2 notebook. That'll fly like a lead balloon.
It doesn't matter if the prosecutor actually pursues the case - the fact that a police report has been filed is a point for the reporters to latch onto. And if the DA sees the case as beneficial to whatever political cause(s) he/she supports, then something may actually happen...
IANAL either, but the 5th amendment only protects against self-incrimination. Anyone else, even your SO, you can be ordered to testify against.
IANAL either, but IIRC, a wife/husband can *not* testify (voluntarily or otherwise) against his/her spouse and relate information told to him/her "in confidence" by the spouse. Information given to a spouse is deems "privileged", the same as information a person gives to an attorney or therapist. I *think* that evidence can be suppressed if it was obtained in violation of "spousal privilege" (for instance, if a husband tells his wife where he hid the gun, and she tells the police, the gun may be deemed inadmissible as evidence).
The spouse *can* testify (voluntarily or otherwise), but only regarding things that he/she witnessed. For instance, a spouse can be forced to answer the question "Did you see your spouse hit the neighbor with a baseball bat?".
Slavery started out as short term indentured servitude that could not be inherited.
Citation?
Hereditary slavery was established a *long* time ago (look up the story of a guy named Moses for an example).
The concept of time-limited slavery such as indentured servitude is a relatively recent development, dating from around the 17th century.
2) Pornography is considered an artistic expression and the US constitution and Canadian charter among other bill of rights in other countries protect free speech. In the 70's there were supreme court cases in the US that helped set precedent protecting pornography under the federal-granted right to free speech.
Which, if taken to it's logical conclusion, would mean that prostitution itself is protected. After all, what is prostitution, if not "performance art"?
By your logic, the US would become a much better place if all the States became sovereign nations. They're already the size of nations. Heck, there's three sovereign nations in Europe that could each fit inside Rhode Island.
The original plan laid down by the Founding Father's had the states as something more than administrative districts, but something less than sovereign nations. So that most of went on within a state's boundaries was governed by the state, and the federal government only dealt with matters that genuinely crossed state lines.
Then we had a Civil War, in which the issue of states' rights became entangled with the issue of slavery. And as a result we now have an all-powerful federal government, and the states *have* been reduced to little more than administrative districts.
I suspect we *would* be better off if the US was more like the EU, with states actually having some degree of independence. Large, central governments are *much* easier for special interests to manipulate, since far fewer people have to be convinced (or bribed).