Uh? I never said that copyright forbids the author to grant that permission, but lacking that permission from the author, copyright forbids you from making such copies.
The thing that gives that permission in this case is the GPL. Not acceptign that GPL does not mean you cannot get that permission in other ways from the author, but there is no default right to copy.
> Recently, one called me saying Comcast told them they had a trojan.... and a bit further on...
> Comcast doesn't (I will refrain from saying can't or won't) say what a user's system is infected with, or what exactly it's doing...just that there's some "illicit traffic" coming from that IP.
It might be me but it seems you are contradicting yourself here.
Maybe they are not sayign what trojan it is infected with, could be.
Matter of fact is however that if Comcasts cuttign of the connection affected your business in this specific case, you have a huge problem. Why? Because you were obviously intending to let this user work with a trojaned PC. Have you any clue whatsoever what that means?
No, if you had a business user there on the other end, Comcast may actually have saved you from breach of security and intergity of your company, and possible liability for damage done by this infected PC.
That said, of course it is possible to do this a lot better then Comcast do.
Not true. The GPL is indeed a contract but one that gives you permission to do things that are forbidden by copyright law. Not accepting it means being bound by copyright law.
This means that as a first step, taking someone to court over copyright infringement is the way to go. Is the defendant goign to use the GPL as defense? good, that means they have now in front of a judge claimed to accept it, and you can sue them over it, no longer havign to worry about if the court is going to accept the contract as valid or not, the defendent already agreed it is.
Well, where is the line between a digital still video camera and a digital camera...
In this case, the specific reason for calling it a still video cam seems to have to do with that what came before it was simply a videocam, and this was the same thing, but with storage that would hold a few frames. Sounds like it has more to do with where it comes from then from it beoing actually a functionally different device from what we clal a digicam today.
Tho, I'd expect it to use some yuv format for storage, which would point at its relation to video hardware (eventho it is used for jpeg compression as well)
From what I can tell, the mavica doesn't really use compression (alltho I'd expect it to use some yuv format which of course is a step on the way to jpeg compression already)
I dont have the details, but somehow I feel that this compression part plays a bit of a role in the Kodak s Sony case... at least, using a ccd + storage + lens to make a camera is well, pretty obvious once you have the ccd, it is sortof the point of a ccd...
I know a much better business model for your world, wait for someone to invent something, take their idea, and produce it yourself and sell it.
Seriously, keeping something a trade secret when lookign for a partner who can do your marketing for example is pretty easy when you succeed with the first partner, but can become very difficult if you have to try with lots of partners...
Also, there are a zilion other conditions in which the company or person that doesn't have to do the research simply has an unfair advantage.
No matter how strongly I dislike things like software patents, in and by itself the patent system is usefull. Does it need review? yes I think it does.
I think that back when Kodak was working on those things, they were not too obvious, no.
There must be a reason why it took others then Kodak several ears to come up with digital cameras that were actually usable and portable, and at the time Kodak filed this patent, the first webcam had still to be made.
Having said that, the concept of a digicam itself is obvious, the way they managed to make it practical with the memory limits back then most likely was not that obvious, and that technology would very well scale to today still allowing better resolution... Yeah, it is compression, but how do you do compression when in fact you have less memory available then needed for the initial uncompressed picture so you can compress it? (yeah all solvable, just pointing at some non obviousness in this invention)
But on that SD/CF card is a file that can be copied to another computer, stored on any other media etc. There is no need to transfer it on that specific card at all. So, the cost of the media is irrelevant.
Well, in fact it is not a one to one copy, its more a direct transcription. I really doubt it matters for copyright related matters tho, both will be regarded a copy.
I don't think such restrictions would be a problem except for the fact that organisations like the RIAA and MPAA ensure that there is monopolistic behavior with regards to such restrictions. What I mean is that there is little alternative to accepting those restrictions, and that seems to be against the basic idea of a free market, and actually soemthing that law is supposed to limit.
There are 2 basic problems here actually:
- Lack of choice
- Consumer ignorance
Well, I don't know about where you live, but overhere (the Netherlands) I pay a levy on videotapes exactly for the reason that yes, I am allowed to make a copy of a DVD to videotape for my own personal use.
(That assumes that I can get around macrovision without breaking the law, but then, not all DVDs are protected that way either)
> The stultifying atmosphere of a prison-like public school may have been fine for acclimating a child to work in the industrial era. It'll hardly prepare her to be competitive in the 21st century. Your point reminds me of the tired "school choice is bad because it only helps the children whose parents take advantage of it" argument.
Hmm, so you are arguing it is better to not fix the public school system. You wonder why people think there are some social issues with that attitude?
> You'd rather hear a child droning: Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
Interestign argument, esp. since it contradicts the whole idea that those 'lost tools of learning' is based on, don't brute force facts but learn to think.
You will notice that the difference between alpha and beta ways of learning are somewhat related to learning brute force and learning to think. Yes, a kid who learned to do it the smart way is better of.
Age of adolecence where I live is still considered to be 14, age of concent went from 21 to 18.
Someone is able to marry at 14, but not without explicit approval from the parents, no change there..
People were indeed assumed to take SOME responsibilities earlier, and others later. All that happened is that that is almost all moved to the same age now.
With regards to missing the point of the article, I doubt I missed the point or am being ignorant of the results of 'classical education'. I am merely pointing out that late mideval times are known to not be a time of great discovery, enligtment or any other things that in any possible way would point at education being decent at that time. Thar is also not snobbery, it is conclusion based on matter of fact, or do you think that time is also called the dark ages coz of lack of sunlight or what?
I completely agree that an actual classical education teaches people to think instead of cramming facts into their head, but you will have to look somewhere else in tiem for that. I suggest trying the last few centuries BC for that.
I can agree with your general view on how a federal government should work, but I definitely disagree regarding the details. I do definitely agree that the US constitution is a wonderful document that was simply a major turningpoint at its time and has great relevance today.
The details..
The state governments are in power over the fed.
I think the civil war solved that one, state governments are as long as they don't act against the common interest. There would have been no USA as it is today otherwise.
You agree that there is a need for a limited federal government. You also feel strongly about the limits that should be in place. How difficult is it to see that the exact same is true on an even larger scale then the USA?
Then, I disagree with your lack of respect for people like Roosevelt truman and the like. They may have had their failures, but for example Roosevelts interference with economy and the relationship between federal and state government did a lot more for recovering from economic crisis then the non interference of the people before him.
On another note, isn't it ironic how the ideals you voice (which I may not agree with completely, but which are imho definitely valid ideals) are treated so badly by of all a republican president as the USA has right now?
> She stuck it out, but it was a generally negative experience. All it took was a couple of truly evil and ignorant teachers and the general prison-like atmosphere of public school to make her withdrawn and sullen. (She wasn't ready to sign on with a gang or anything, but the change was dramatic, and it took a while for her to regain her naturally more social demeanor). This was in one of the best schools in our city.
I'm sorry to hear that you have the bad luck of living in a community (or maybe even society) that allows public schools to be that bad.
What you overlook in your story however is that as soon as the girl from your example is put into what real society is like at your place, she can't deal. It may well be that that school was bad, but you are saying its the best available there, so hrm, maybe society is to blame then... regardless, she is not ready to deal with society as it is, and that was one of the purposes of education.
I read through that TLS thingy and found myself agreeing with the things they try to poitn out with their questions, but also found myself amazed by the idea that this should somehow be solvable by going back to methods that were in use in the late mideval times.
Also, there are some patently untrue assumptions in there, for example the age at which responsibility is assumed in a person. (Where I live, the age of full maturity and where people could start taking political responsibility used to be 33 till early 20th century when it was changed to 21 and relatively recently it was changed to 18)
The fact that a full education could be finished earlier in late mideval times has a lot to do with that there was a lot less to learn. It has been some 700-800 years ago that the last title for all sciences has been earned by a student and the whole idea was dropped because of it becomming too much foa human mind during the same time that the whole idea about education changed more toward teaching facts.
Last but not least, mideval times are not really known for beign a time of enlightenment.
All in all, some good questions are raised but false assumptions and obviously a bit of blind belief in the past being better seems to have resulted in entirely wrong conclusions.
If you are really looking for wise lessons from the past regarding education, I strongly suggest skipping mideval times and going back to either ancient Greek or Roman times, or to 'early' modern history.
Yes there is a lot wrong with modern education, both in the USA and Europe, and the TLS site points out some rather relevant ones.
It has been some 4 years ago now that I had an encyclopedia seller visit my house (selling the Encyclopedia Brittanica actually).
He called in advance, and I explained to him that if anything, I would be interested in an electronic version of it and possibly in a subscription for a web based version.
The guy sayd those things were available and I asked if he could demonstrate them and he said he would.
Wgen arriving at my place, he had a suitcase of paper with him, which looked all nice but was noit what I asked for. He did not have an electronic version with him.
The guy got rather pissed at me when I told him that I was not going to do any business with him because of this.
Now, EB could have sold me an encyclopedia but didn't due to this stupid salesman, not because of the web or anythign else.
I'm happily using the web now, and used encarta for a while. They will do for many things.
> Bet you can't go 24 hours without thinking of the USA.
The USA's constant meddlign with European law and such makes sure of that.
You know, I'd respect the typical republican view a lot more if it would actually be practised instead of preached.
But as things stand, the position of many Americans seems not to be that they do not want a world government, they want the American government to be that world government. Maybe they don't really think that, but the government that supposedly represents them surely behaves like they think that.
Many Europeans did know something was going on. Many jews fled Germany while they still could. Part of them fled to the USA. To which extent people knew what was going on is another question.
At any rate, during the early years of the war the 'final solution' was not implemented yet, and tho jews and other minorities were supressed, this whole issue was only perceived as a problem after the war and was not an argument in participating for the USA.
Roosevelt and his government believed they'd get involved from the start it seems, and my guess is that he actually felt the USA had to be involved also, judging from the state propaganda that was issued at the time.
The American public however did not care much at all untill Japan attacked and Germany declared war.
As a maybe interesting sidenote, my granddad spent the last year of the war in a German camp (and returned). My girlfriends graddad was a high ranking officer in the waffen SS. Somehow I think I got some rather direct sources on both sides, and neither have ever claimed to not know ugly things were going on, but both claimed to have no idea about what really was happening an on what scale.
Conclusion for me is that many people who claim they did not know anything was happening are basicly lying, but claiming that people other then those directly involved knew exactly what was happening seems to be as far from the truth.
> The Soviet Union in fact has more vetos than any other permanent member.
Technically true, but most of those date back to almost 40 years ago and also very technically, last time I checked the USSR no longer exists.
If you look at the time after the mid 60s (that is about the same time where the USA traded idealism for money as the main motivator for foreign policy) the USA is by far the biggest 'user' of the veto.
I see.. so what you are saying is that since there are other problems in this world we should block attempts to force Israel to act in accordance with the UN charter that they signed when becomming a member? Passively allowing something to happen is not good and in many cases not excusable, but it is no excuse for actively blocking intervention that is long overdue.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Israel has a right to defend itself, and that includes using violence where needed. There are however rules to which it agreed freely and willingly and it should be kept within the rules.
That is exactly why the use of vetos by the USA has done substantial damage. Are they the only ones guilty of that? definitely not, but that doesn't change anything.
Bah, that should have been posted as plain text.. lemme retry..
> *The U.S.A. got into WWII because it cared about the rest of the world.(moot)
Uh? The USA was attacked by Japan. Germany declared war on the USA. Tell em again, how exactly did caring about the world play a role in this?
> *Yes it made the mistake of helping set it up.Go figure which kind of administration did it.(interesting but irrelevant)
In fact that was not the Roosevelt but trueman (sp?) administration but whatever. The fact that you dislike that administration does not change that historically it did quite a few things right (and other things wrong)
In your entire reasoning you forget all of history before WWII. The fact that the USA did not join the League of Nations was one (by far not the only, but a very relevant) reason for it failing and resulting in the situation that finally ended in WWII. The UN was an answer to that.
> *If you need a power other than your own countrys government to guide you and control you,go ahead,you deserve it.(moot)
Following that reasoning, why not abandom the whole federal state? Obviously all you need is the power of your state government..
> *The U.S.A. got into WWII because it cared about the rest of the world.(moot)
Uh?
The USA was attacked by Japan.
Germany declared war on the USA.
Tell em again, how exactly did caring about the world play a role in this?
> *Yes it made the mistake of helping set it up.Go figure which kind of administration did it.(interesting but irrelevant)
In fact that was not the Roosevelt but truman (sp?) administration but whatever.
The fact that you dislike that administration does not change that historically it did quite a few things right (and other things wrong)
In your entire reasoning you forget all of history before WWII. The fact that the USA did not join the League of Nations was one (by far not the only, but a very relevant) reason for it failing and resulting in the situation that finally ended in WWII. The UN was an answer to that.
> *If you need a power other than your own countrys government to guide you and control you,go ahead,you deserve it.(moot)
Following that reasoning, why not abandom the whole federal state? Obviously all you need is the power of your state government..
Slashdot Mirror
Uh? I never said that copyright forbids the author to grant that permission, but lacking that permission from the author, copyright forbids you from making such copies.
The thing that gives that permission in this case is the GPL. Not acceptign that GPL does not mean you cannot get that permission in other ways from the author, but there is no default right to copy.
I suggest you reread my original post.
> Recently, one called me saying Comcast told them they had a trojan. ... and a bit further on ...
> Comcast doesn't (I will refrain from saying can't or won't) say what a user's system is infected with, or what exactly it's doing...just that there's some "illicit traffic" coming from that IP.
It might be me but it seems you are contradicting yourself here.
Maybe they are not sayign what trojan it is infected with, could be.
Matter of fact is however that if Comcasts cuttign of the connection affected your business in this specific case, you have a huge problem. Why? Because you were obviously intending to let this user work with a trojaned PC. Have you any clue whatsoever what that means?
No, if you had a business user there on the other end, Comcast may actually have saved you from breach of security and intergity of your company, and possible liability for damage done by this infected PC.
That said, of course it is possible to do this a lot better then Comcast do.
Not true. The GPL is indeed a contract but one that gives you permission to do things that are forbidden by copyright law. Not accepting it means being bound by copyright law.
This means that as a first step, taking someone to court over copyright infringement is the way to go. Is the defendant goign to use the GPL as defense? good, that means they have now in front of a judge claimed to accept it, and you can sue them over it, no longer havign to worry about if the court is going to accept the contract as valid or not, the defendent already agreed it is.
Well, where is the line between a digital still video camera and a digital camera...
In this case, the specific reason for calling it a still video cam seems to have to do with that what came before it was simply a videocam, and this was the same thing, but with storage that would hold a few frames. Sounds like it has more to do with where it comes from then from it beoing actually a functionally different device from what we clal a digicam today.
Tho, I'd expect it to use some yuv format for storage, which would point at its relation to video hardware (eventho it is used for jpeg compression as well)
From what I can tell, the mavica doesn't really use compression (alltho I'd expect it to use some yuv format which of course is a step on the way to jpeg compression already) I dont have the details, but somehow I feel that this compression part plays a bit of a role in the Kodak s Sony case... at least, using a ccd + storage + lens to make a camera is well, pretty obvious once you have the ccd, it is sortof the point of a ccd...
I know a much better business model for your world, wait for someone to invent something, take their idea, and produce it yourself and sell it.
Seriously, keeping something a trade secret when lookign for a partner who can do your marketing for example is pretty easy when you succeed with the first partner, but can become very difficult if you have to try with lots of partners...
Also, there are a zilion other conditions in which the company or person that doesn't have to do the research simply has an unfair advantage.
No matter how strongly I dislike things like software patents, in and by itself the patent system is usefull. Does it need review? yes I think it does.
I think that back when Kodak was working on those things, they were not too obvious, no.
There must be a reason why it took others then Kodak several ears to come up with digital cameras that were actually usable and portable, and at the time Kodak filed this patent, the first webcam had still to be made.
Having said that, the concept of a digicam itself is obvious, the way they managed to make it practical with the memory limits back then most likely was not that obvious, and that technology would very well scale to today still allowing better resolution... Yeah, it is compression, but how do you do compression when in fact you have less memory available then needed for the initial uncompressed picture so you can compress it?
(yeah all solvable, just pointing at some non obviousness in this invention)
But on that SD/CF card is a file that can be copied to another computer, stored on any other media etc. There is no need to transfer it on that specific card at all. So, the cost of the media is irrelevant.
Well, in fact it is not a one to one copy, its more a direct transcription. I really doubt it matters for copyright related matters tho, both will be regarded a copy.
I don't think such restrictions would be a problem except for the fact that organisations like the RIAA and MPAA ensure that there is monopolistic behavior with regards to such restrictions. What I mean is that there is little alternative to accepting those restrictions, and that seems to be against the basic idea of a free market, and actually soemthing that law is supposed to limit. There are 2 basic problems here actually: - Lack of choice - Consumer ignorance
Well, I don't know about where you live, but overhere (the Netherlands) I pay a levy on videotapes exactly for the reason that yes, I am allowed to make a copy of a DVD to videotape for my own personal use.
(That assumes that I can get around macrovision without breaking the law, but then, not all DVDs are protected that way either)
I often read slashdot on my Palm, does that count?
> The stultifying atmosphere of a prison-like public school may have been fine for acclimating a child to work in the industrial era. It'll hardly prepare her to be competitive in the 21st century. Your point reminds me of the tired "school choice is bad because it only helps the children whose parents take advantage of it" argument. Hmm, so you are arguing it is better to not fix the public school system. You wonder why people think there are some social issues with that attitude? > You'd rather hear a child droning: Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. Interestign argument, esp. since it contradicts the whole idea that those 'lost tools of learning' is based on, don't brute force facts but learn to think. You will notice that the difference between alpha and beta ways of learning are somewhat related to learning brute force and learning to think. Yes, a kid who learned to do it the smart way is better of.
Age of adolecence where I live is still considered to be 14, age of concent went from 21 to 18.
Someone is able to marry at 14, but not without explicit approval from the parents, no change there..
People were indeed assumed to take SOME responsibilities earlier, and others later.
All that happened is that that is almost all moved to the same age now.
With regards to missing the point of the article, I doubt I missed the point or am being ignorant of the results of 'classical education'. I am merely pointing out that late mideval times are known to not be a time of great discovery, enligtment or any other things that in any possible way would point at education being decent at that time.
Thar is also not snobbery, it is conclusion based on matter of fact, or do you think that time is also called the dark ages coz of lack of sunlight or what?
I completely agree that an actual classical education teaches people to think instead of cramming facts into their head, but you will have to look somewhere else in tiem for that. I suggest trying the last few centuries BC for that.
I see, so your problem is that you can only respect those whom you agree with politically.. well, good luck with that one.
The details..
I think the civil war solved that one, state governments are as long as they don't act against the common interest. There would have been no USA as it is today otherwise.
Then, I disagree with your lack of respect for people like Roosevelt truman and the like. They may have had their failures, but for example Roosevelts interference with economy and the relationship between federal and state government did a lot more for recovering from economic crisis then the non interference of the people before him.
On another note, isn't it ironic how the ideals you voice (which I may not agree with completely, but which are imho definitely valid ideals) are treated so badly by of all a republican president as the USA has right now?
> She stuck it out, but it was a generally negative experience. All it took was a couple of truly evil and ignorant teachers and the general prison-like atmosphere of public school to make her withdrawn and sullen. (She wasn't ready to sign on with a gang or anything, but the change was dramatic, and it took a while for her to regain her naturally more social demeanor). This was in one of the best schools in our city.
I'm sorry to hear that you have the bad luck of living in a community (or maybe even society) that allows public schools to be that bad.
What you overlook in your story however is that as soon as the girl from your example is put into what real society is like at your place, she can't deal. It may well be that that school was bad, but you are saying its the best available there, so hrm, maybe society is to blame then... regardless, she is not ready to deal with society as it is, and that was one of the purposes of education.
I read through that TLS thingy and found myself agreeing with the things they try to poitn out with their questions, but also found myself amazed by the idea that this should somehow be solvable by going back to methods that were in use in the late mideval times.
Also, there are some patently untrue assumptions in there, for example the age at which responsibility is assumed in a person. (Where I live, the age of full maturity and where people could start taking political responsibility used to be 33 till early 20th century when it was changed to 21 and relatively recently it was changed to 18)
The fact that a full education could be finished earlier in late mideval times has a lot to do with that there was a lot less to learn. It has been some 700-800 years ago that the last title for all sciences has been earned by a student and the whole idea was dropped because of it becomming too much foa human mind during the same time that the whole idea about education changed more toward teaching facts.
Last but not least, mideval times are not really known for beign a time of enlightenment.
All in all, some good questions are raised but false assumptions and obviously a bit of blind belief in the past being better seems to have resulted in entirely wrong conclusions.
If you are really looking for wise lessons from the past regarding education, I strongly suggest skipping mideval times and going back to either ancient Greek or Roman times, or to 'early' modern history.
Yes there is a lot wrong with modern education, both in the USA and Europe, and the TLS site points out some rather relevant ones.
It has been some 4 years ago now that I had an encyclopedia seller visit my house (selling the Encyclopedia Brittanica actually).
He called in advance, and I explained to him that if anything, I would be interested in an electronic version of it and possibly in a subscription for a web based version.
The guy sayd those things were available and I asked if he could demonstrate them and he said he would.
Wgen arriving at my place, he had a suitcase of paper with him, which looked all nice but was noit what I asked for. He did not have an electronic version with him.
The guy got rather pissed at me when I told him that I was not going to do any business with him because of this.
Now, EB could have sold me an encyclopedia but didn't due to this stupid salesman, not because of the web or anythign else.
I'm happily using the web now, and used encarta for a while. They will do for many things.
> Bet you can't go
24 hours without thinking of the USA.
The USA's constant meddlign with European law and such makes sure of that.
You know, I'd respect the typical republican view a lot more if it would actually be practised instead of preached.
But as things stand, the position of many Americans seems not to be that they do not want a world government, they want the American government to be that world government.
Maybe they don't really think that, but the government that supposedly represents them surely behaves like they think that.
Many Europeans did know something was going on. Many jews fled Germany while they still could. Part of them fled to the USA. To which extent people knew what was going on is another question.
At any rate, during the early years of the war the 'final solution' was not implemented yet, and tho jews and other minorities were supressed, this whole issue was only perceived as a problem after the war and was not an argument in participating for the USA.
Roosevelt and his government believed they'd get involved from the start it seems, and my guess is that he actually felt the USA had to be involved also, judging from the state propaganda that was issued at the time.
The American public however did not care much at all untill Japan attacked and Germany declared war.
As a maybe interesting sidenote, my granddad spent the last year of the war in a German camp (and returned). My girlfriends graddad was a high ranking officer in the waffen SS. Somehow I think I got some rather direct sources on both sides, and neither have ever claimed to not know ugly things were going on, but both claimed to have no idea about what really was happening an on what scale.
Conclusion for me is that many people who claim they did not know anything was happening are basicly lying, but claiming that people other then those directly involved knew exactly what was happening seems to be as far from the truth.
> The Soviet Union in fact has more vetos than any other permanent member.
Technically true, but most of those date back to almost 40 years ago and also very technically, last time I checked the USSR no longer exists.
If you look at the time after the mid 60s (that is about the same time where the USA traded idealism for money as the main motivator for foreign policy) the USA is by far the biggest 'user' of the veto.
China is a good 2nd.
I see.. so what you are saying is that since there are other problems in this world we should block attempts to force Israel to act in accordance with the UN charter that they signed when becomming a member? Passively allowing something to happen is not good and in many cases not excusable, but it is no excuse for actively blocking intervention that is long overdue.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Israel has a right to defend itself, and that includes using violence where needed. There are however rules to which it agreed freely and willingly and it should be kept within the rules.
That is exactly why the use of vetos by the USA has done substantial damage. Are they the only ones guilty of that? definitely not, but that doesn't change anything.
Bah, that should have been posted as plain text.. lemme retry..
,you deserve it.(moot)
> *The U.S.A. got into WWII because it cared about the rest of the world.(moot)
Uh? The USA was attacked by Japan. Germany declared war on the USA. Tell em again, how exactly did caring about the world play a role in this?
> *Yes it made the mistake of helping set it up.Go figure which kind of administration did it.(interesting but irrelevant)
In fact that was not the Roosevelt but trueman (sp?) administration but whatever. The fact that you dislike that administration does not change that historically it did quite a few things right (and other things wrong)
In your entire reasoning you forget all of history before WWII. The fact that the USA did not join the League of Nations was one (by far not the only, but a very relevant) reason for it failing and resulting in the situation that finally ended in WWII. The UN was an answer to that.
> *If you need a power other than your own countrys government to guide you and control you,go ahead
Following that reasoning, why not abandom the whole federal state? Obviously all you need is the power of your state government..
> *The U.S.A. got into WWII because it cared about the rest of the world.(moot) Uh? The USA was attacked by Japan. Germany declared war on the USA. Tell em again, how exactly did caring about the world play a role in this? > *Yes it made the mistake of helping set it up.Go figure which kind of administration did it.(interesting but irrelevant) In fact that was not the Roosevelt but truman (sp?) administration but whatever. The fact that you dislike that administration does not change that historically it did quite a few things right (and other things wrong) In your entire reasoning you forget all of history before WWII. The fact that the USA did not join the League of Nations was one (by far not the only, but a very relevant) reason for it failing and resulting in the situation that finally ended in WWII. The UN was an answer to that. > *If you need a power other than your own countrys government to guide you and control you,go ahead ,you deserve it.(moot)
Following that reasoning, why not abandom the whole federal state? Obviously all you need is the power of your state government..