The problem is they're *all* "shitty bums." So it rarely matters what you do in the voting booth.
...you don't get to select who to vote for. That's done by the political parties; they pick candidate A, *and* candidate B, both at a very deep level that has *nothing* to do with the voters. Then *you* choose between the two -- and in no case are you able to elect anyone who will not maintain the status quo. Well, unless you live in Ron Paul's district, but that is a rather unique aberration, and again because it is a statistical blip, won't get anything changed.
The root problem with our voting system is that it is specifically designed, both at the citizen level, and at the legislator level, so that any two uninformed individuals (of which we have a vast surplus) can outvote any informed person (of which we have a severe shortage.) Consequently, our system is degenerating at a steady pace, our liberties evaporating, our privacy eroding, our founding ideals moldering.
There is a (ridiculous) mindset out there that says that reasonably qualifying individuals to vote is "prejudicial"; these loonies imagine that it is racist or otherwise unfairly disenfranchising. However, the only people it disenfranchises are people who fail to become informed on the issues they're voting for. Obviously handing over this responsibility to a representative was supposed to solve the "uninformed" problem, but also obviously, it doesn't.
Watching the country implode upon its own founding precepts has become the national spectator sport. The chief betting issue being only whether the next blow to the country will come from the legislature, the courts, or the executive.
They didn't kill the previous model, though, did they? This is just another model.
When they were talking about it a few months back we (family, we all have PSPs) looked at it, thought, no UMD drive, meh, not for us, and noted that (at the time) the old version was still to be made, so this was a non-issue.
You know, for kids who tend to be harder on things (and tend not to quite treat them as if they had spent hundreds of dollars on them, since generally, they didn't do that, the parents did), the no-drive, no UMD design makes a certain sort of sense. Tougher. Or at least, it could be.
No, the reason you don't put people like me on the court is because you're not allowed to. The political parties control this process. Not you, or anyone like you. They control it by controlling who you get to vote for. Then they tell you who will be a judge. Because you -- and most people like you -- don't have the stones to stand up and say "wait a minute... these people aren't doing their jobs." As for "twentieth century jurisprudence", again, this is not the solution. This is one of the core problems.
In any case, my position has something real and important to back it up, that document known as the constitution. Your position has oodles of "jurisprudence" to back it up; reams and reams of reasoning like "interstate" means "intrastate", and I have no use for the mass of sophist nonsense you cite. These people have proven, over and over again, that they do not have the best interests of the citizens in mind, are not obeying the authority that allows them some very limited powers, and are rarely above declaring black is white in the soberest of tones.
Good luck with all that. Truly. I hope you never end up in Guantanimo, or even the local ass-fuckery (AKA prison.) I hope you never need your free speech, for you have abandoned it. I hope you never need to defend yourself and find yourself legislated out of the tools required. I hope you never need pot to give you appetite over your chemo, and find yourself dragged, again, off to the local ass-fuckery. I hope no one sends you "unacceptable" materials, and you find yourself on the wrong end of the moral indignation these putzes think stands in for clear thought. I wish you all the luck in the world. Your best luck would not agree with your vision of the world, and that would be a proper, liberty-centric civilization with a moderate dose of social intercare. But again, that's ok. Good luck anyway. Ta.
The issue at hand when the supreme court becomes involved is, is (the issue) constitutional, or is it not. So the document to refer to is -- tada -- the constitution. Nothing else.
It is the very reliance on previous and flawed rulings that screws up SCOTUS. And you'll note that the constitution does NOT require one to be a lawyer to be a supreme court justice. You know why? Because the constitution wasn't written for lawyers. It was written to formalize the authorization of the government in plain English.
Until you understand that, you don't understand your nation.
Scalia, who you seem to respect so, is a perfect example of this. In Parker, he and his cohorts emitted 75(!!!!) pages of complete and utter bullshit, when all they had to say -- in fact, what their JOB is to say -- was "2nd amendment of the constitution specifies shall not infringe... 14th applies the 2nd to you... you infringed... you lose. law struck down. Next case."
Lawyers -- and case law -- are not the solution. These things are the problem.
Your opinion of Nick is noted, and just FYI, also serves as a source of considerable amusement. No wonder you worship Scalia so.
Most issues that come before the Court are not as clear cut as you seem to want them to be
I think most actually are, once you strip the illegal modifications that have been made to the legal system. Once the question is down to what the constitution actually says, the answer is pretty much staring us in the face, until we begin to pretend that "interstate" means "intrastate" and "reasonable" is undefined, and "make no law" means "make law", and "shall not be infringed" means "infringe all you want at every level", and "be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" means "unless we decide to look", and "shall not be deprived without due process" means "indefinite jailing on a whim", and "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" means "waterboard 'em, fuck 'em with a lightbulb, rape 'em, stick electric prods on their gonads", and "the right to a speedy and public trial" means "half a decade in prison without even a bloody phone call", and "no cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" means "make our prisons the involuntary ass fuck center of the universe", not to mention "waterboard 'em, rape 'em, torture 'em, isolate 'em, deny them representation, trial, due process of ANY kind..."
No, I think these things are pretty damned clear, actually. I just think our justice system and large swaths of our government are comprised of evil and/or deluded people. If you'd like, throw me a court case you think isn't clear or that I would find difficult to determine the constitutionality of the issue at hand. I'll be happy to see if I agree, and tell you why.
By your standard there is no Supreme Court justice on this Court who isn't a "Constitutional nightmare." I'm not sure there ever was one.
Is that a reason not to seek them? In fact, I have to ask, why do you even think that's germane?
what decision did she make "without regard" to the Constitution
More than one. For instance, the constitution CLEARLY protects all speech, political or not, by unequivocally forbidding the government from interfering with it. Yet she supported the use of government power to repress that speech. If you think that decision was made with regard to what the constitution authorizes the government to do, then you're very confused. There is no such authorization; not anywhere in the main body, not in the first amendment, and not in any other amendment. I think what you may be trying to say is that she may be putting reliance on the existing body of unauthorized law which imposes unauthorized power, but that is not at all the same thing as doing what the constitution authorizes her to do, or refraining from doing what it forbids.
That's not all, either. One case pointed out (quite correctly) that the use of a telephone for a local, intrastate call did not fall under the authorization of the commerce clause, which ONLY authorizes regulation of commerce BETWEEN the states. She decided wrongly there, as well. She thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. Even the majority of the current SCOTUS don't agree with her there; that's just idiotic (and yes, there are a lot of similar idiots out there, but they're uniformly and without exception people who cannot support that position. No one can, because the 2nd is, in fact, crystal clear.) You want to try and argue for her position on the 2nd, I'll be happy to completely and utterly destroy your arguments, point by point, with references.:o) And so on.
"Constitutionally invalid" is nonsense
No sir, it is not. If the constitution says "the government can't do this", then it isn't authorized to, until or unless it has been changed via amendment. Doing said thing without authorization is unauthorized use of power, and is no different in character from the actions of any tin pot dictator you woul
The list of badly thought out rationalizations to prohibit free speech is indeed long, but the number of people who subscribe to them that I know is not large. Admittedly, I live in an area where even the state government has rejected the federal position on many of these issues -- we have laws *against* eminent domain, *against* federal firearms authority, and so forth. Perhaps the people in your area do indeed cleave as a majority to the ideas you mention above. If so, what a crying, pitiful shame. And what a broad condemnation of our educational system.
So yes, the 1st Amendment, as written, is an extremist position. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it unconventional.
The constitution, inclusive of the first amendment, is the constituting authority for government power and structure. Anything to the contrary is by definition illegal and unauthorized, barring pursuit of article V. That's not opinion: That's fact. The legal system is being driven by people in violation of the highest law in the land. Fact. If you take comfort in the commonality of the number and position of the lawbreakers, that's your business. I don't. I only regret that there are no penalties associated with violation of the constitution's requirements; I have no doubt in my mind that is why legislators and judges alike feel free to "wing it" whenever they choose.
So, assuming you do have a clue, who are you pushing for?
No, you have it right. I'm pushing against Sotomayor. I'm not in a position where I can nominate anyone. But I can raise my voice against poor choices.
However... If the nation really wanted a really good SCOTUS justice, it should obviously pick me. I'd protect rights as written in the constitution, and my response to those who would twist its words to try to get what they want would uniformly "seek an amendment." But guess what? I misspent my teenage years (drugs) and part of my young adult life [crazed musician], I'm not wealthy, and frankly, I couldn't win the office of dogcatcher on my best day. So my input is limited to speaking my opinion, and defending it as best I can, in the face of whatever opposition arises. From time to time, someone shows me where I'm wrong, and I adjust my opinions accordingly. That's just as much of a win for me as is enlightening someone else, as (very) occasionally happens.
I suppose if I had a choice in the matter, I'd probably pick a thinker like Nick Gillespie. But I don't.
Look, it's simple. Really. I'm not a proponent of a country where only political speech is free. I'm not a proponent of a country where "regulate trade between the states" means "regulate trade within the states." I'm not a proponent of a country where a local telephone call is a matter of federal legislation. I'm not a proponent of a country where "shall make no law" means "let's have a party making laws." I'm not a proponent of a country where judges think that the clearly laid out details of what are required for a reasonable search by the constitution are irrelevant, and they can make up their own ideas. I'm not a proponent of a country where the government will allow the taking of your property for ANY reason other than major public works of national importance to everyone.
Sotomayor stands opposite to where I do on all these issues, and it is completely fair to say that all of these have roots in the plain English of the constitution.
but I can't be terribly upset about someone like Sotomayor who actually looks at the merits of each case and makes a careful nuanced decision
It doesn't do that much good to "look at the merits of each case" if you make up your answers without regard to the highest law in the land. Your "nuances", no matter how finely drawn, are going to be of very low quality, and that's exactly what I see when I look at her rulings. She has repeatedly drawn constitutionally invalid and harmful decisions when put to the test. So I don't want her on the supreme court.
...your claim that she doesn't deserve to serve as one of the nine justices because of her position [on the 1st amendment] is just absurd
Is it? Rather, I think that pointing to the (admittedly) low quality of the judges in the supreme court today and using that as some kind of rationale for putting in another lousy justice is very weird reasoning. If you think that they're poor, the right thing to do is to try to replace them if and when possible with better people. Not by adding yet another mediocre, clue-free seat of the pants thinker to the heap. Here's an opportunity to add a new person. Why settle for another poor performer? I mean, if you agree with her, that's another thing entirely, but if you disagree, why settle for less? Do you really believe she's the best candidate possible, or even close? Or are you simply advocating for laziness?
And again, my objection isn't just about the 1st amendment, and I never said it was. So let's stick with arguing about what I did say, ok?
Please see my other reply. Same issues were raised and I have disposed of them there. If you have further comments, please use that part of the thread.
But conventional wisdom is, that's a radical bomb-thrower nutcase position.
I don't buy it. Conventional wisdom among who? Almost no one I know - and that's quite a few people - subscribes to the idea that the US government -- at any level -- should repress speech and opinion. My impression is that is just propaganda we hear from the government itself. Who do you consider "conventional"? Old USSR expatriates? Saudi Shaikhs? Colonel Gaddafi? Sonia herself? Seriously, who can you point to that supports the government should suppress free speech and opinion position such that you characterize it as "conventional"? Do you think that because the government says so, it must be so? They lie, you know -- they lie a lot.
There is no, repeat, no chance of getting a First Amendment absolutist appointed to the Supreme Court.
Well, there certainly isn't if people are passive in the face of the appointment of known to be constitutionally destructive judges. Are you suggesting I just say "well, she's only confused on about half the amendments and the commerce clause, so, "Hurray Obama"? Or that I pimp her as a good idea because Scalia is a complete and utter idiot and she isn't? It isn't like she's going to replace him, you know. Why shouldn't I push for someone better than her, since she has such obvious and profound warts? I'm sorry, I just can't see your POV here.
what is it that makes her so much of a "constitutional nightmare" in comparison?
The fact that it isn't just the first amendment she screws up on. She screws up on the commerce clause; she screws up on the 2nd amendment (and badly, and even according to the most recent SCOTUS ruling); she screws up on the 4th amendment; she screws up on the 5th amendment.
That is why she's a constitutional nightmare. Add to that the fact that she thinks she's a "wise latina" (oh, brother) and that her POV is inherently better than that of a "white male." She doesn't even belong on the bench, never mind on the bench of the highest court in the land, as far as I'm concerned. Do you really want to get her in there and see how much of what remains of constitutional principles she completely misinterprets?
I agree that's a pretty sad decision in terms of student first amendment rights, but...
No, sorry, I'm not going to give her first amendment credit because she sometimes gets some parts of it right. Not to mention the fact that she fails hard in several other constitutional areas (which the blog post also points out.) Her entire job is to get all of it right all the time. It's plain English, for crying out loud:
"...shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
This applies within the states via the 14th amendment's incorporation doctrine. For a judge to misunderstand that they either have to have a major head injury or be an outright traitor to their oath. How is it that I, a common person, easily understand this, and this "wise latina" (her own characterization, not mine) does not???
She definitely doesn't deserve to serve as one of the nine final arbiters of 1st amendment rights if she thinks muzzling young people's speech and opinions outside of school by enforcement actions inside of school is an appropriate use of government power. She directly creates an environment here where a person's free speech outside of school will engender thoughts (and correct ones, at that) of government punishment and intervention. The woman is a constitutional nightmare.
I found her name spelled both ways in many locations; I had to pick one, so I chose the one Google kept correcting me to use in the searches. Frankly, I don't feel threatened by her name, only her actions.
With regard to my research, follow the links and argue the data, or be ignored. Your initial sally, trying to impeach my political position over the spelling of a name, is about on the 3rd grade level. If I give you extra credit, that is. Ah, the Internet. Where anyone can post. [stares]
She's an outright constitutional nightmare, chief or associate position notwithstanding. Exactly the kind of thinker who erodes the constitution at a terrifying pace. Her history as a judge contains an amazing number of constitutional misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and outright bewilderment.
Odds are excellent that's she's going to be confirmed, though; get ready to bend over for "enhanced legislation." The light in this tunnel is definitely a train.
I still have working, fully loaded SS-50 bus machines from about 1982 with all kinds of cool cards in them like speech synthesizers, A/D and D/A, graphics cards, memory, etc. I wrote a lot of 6800 and 6809 assembly code back then... in 1994, I wrote a complete 6809 system emulation, including the OS from the time (6809 Flex) and emulation of an arcade graphics subsystem I designed so I'd always have a working "machine" to fool with my old code. Virtual disk drives, ports, timers, etc. Still runs great; I run it under XP, which runs under Parallels, which runs under OSX.:o)
I also have a SOROC terminal and a paper tape reader, and a mint tiny BASIC on paper tape (for the 8080.) The first machine I had that I didn't actually build out of TTL was based on a National Semiconductor ISP-8000-8A SC/MP I got in 1976. I published an article about using the SC/MP as a Baudot printer driver with the SWTPC 6800 in the November 1977 issue of Kilobaud. My first published work, in fact.
The first machine I ever owned I built out of TTL in... I think 1970... as there wasn't any other option at the time. A couple of 74181 ALUs in the middle, all manner of other stuff in there, register memory files.... Man, that was a wild nest of wires and sockets. The power supply was a nightmare. But I learned a lot doing it. You can't (or maybe you can) imagine how enthused I was when the 8080 and 6800 hit the market, and the downright euphoria I felt when the 6809 came out.
I still think that the 6809 was one of the best designed MPUs ever from a programming standpoint. I can still write 6800 and 6809 opcodes straight to paper. Even fairly complex things like the 6809's LEA instructions. And calculate its 2's complement branch offsets more or less instantly. Now there's a chunk of neurons I'll never get back....
I did some work for Centuri (an arcade game machine manufacturer) where I built them boards that would plug in where the 6502 was in their then-current hardware, and put a 6809 there instead. Just a few gates and some socket hardware, and goodbye 6502! Lord, I despised the 6502. What a bass-ackwards... nevermind. Then I wrote them a few graphics demos that left a few executives spitting coffee. Nothing like a hardware multiply (and the ability to do easy division by multiplying via a table of reciprocals) to step up from an MPU where the main claim to fame is bloody 8-bit role-reversed index registers...
Oldest working non computer hardware I own is a console AM radio from the 1930s. It's even still mostly original... it'd almost certainly work better if I went in there and replaced a lot of components with their modern equivalents, but it's more interesting as is, and in fact it still works quite well. Doesn't complete with my current radio gear, but then again, the currents stuff doesn't have the charm of a polished wood cabinet, either.
Never in my life have I seen somebody so spectacularly fail to get the point.
Thats because you subscribe to the idea that intentional misinterpretation and misunderstanding rises to the level of legitimate public debate. It doesn't. There is no legitimate debate over the 2nd. No law is authorized that limits the keeping or bearing of arms. Period. No debate. Any such law is in direct violation of the constitution; any judicial or congressional action supporting such a law is a violation of oath. The 2nd is crystal clear on the matter.
When some moron claims "militia" means national guard (or any of a number of other idiotic claims), that's no more debate than claiming black is white - it's drivel. Your example was flawed. That's why I posted (and you failed to comprehend paragraph 3 in my original post as well.) Please don't pretend the plain English of the 2nd amendment is debatable. It only encourages the morons and those who wish to ignore the constitution to achieve constitutionally destructive ends.
Tell me the precise settled meaning of the Second Amendment
The 2nd amendment is easily analyzed if you're not starting with a need to fulfill an agenda. It is written in plain English, and its context is the key: It's in a document specifying the constituting authority of the federal and in some cases, state governments.
The 2nd is made up of two phrases; the first is explicatory, that is, it explains some things, but it contains no instructions. Because it contains no instructions, it is entirely irrelevant unless the 2nd phrase, the operative (because it contains instructions) phrase, refers to it -- which it does not do.
As for settled, this is a meaningless term in our system of law. Everything is in flux; everything is subject to revision and/or amendment. That's not the problem. The problem is intentional twisting of the meaning of the document; twisting that becomes perfectly clear after careful analysis. Such twisting is action of those who desire a system of law not authorized by the constitution.
Here's a complete analysis of the 2nd I wrote some time back:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
First, there is the explicatory phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"; this phrase serves to provide a rationale for what follows. It doesn't instruct the government to do anything, it simply explains something the framers thought would help readers understand why the operative phrase to come says what it does.
Even so, let's look at it. Militia meant all able bodied males of a reasonable age, such that they could rationally be expected to fight. It does not mean "national guard", nor does it mean "army" or "state militia." If you doubt me, look it up. I'll wait.
Well regulated meant consistent, and in this specific phrase, it meant consistently armed. Laws on the books at that time went so far as to specify exactly what that meant; so many bullets, so much powder in a container suitable to keep it dry, etc.
The "security of a free state" means either to retain the state of being free, or it means to retain a political state, in which freedom is secure. I admit that I have no particular preference in the reading; they could have meant either one. They both seem to amount to the same thing to me in the final analysis.
So basically what they were saying here in modern English is that consistently armed and able fighting people are needed in order to retain freedom. Once we unveil the somewhat obfuscatory archaic English, it makes perfect sense. Of course such people would be needed.
Regardless, again, it's not an instruction to the government. It's just an explanation.
Now we come to the actual instruction, the operative phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is as clear today as when it was written. Infringed still means today what it meant then; The Oxford dictionary has it as:
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on : his legal rights were being infringed | [ intrans. ] I wouldn't infringe on his privacy.
But surely you knew that. Infringe isn't an uncommon word. When I begin to infringe on your personal space, I'm too close. I'm just inside the edges. When I seriously infringe on your personal space, I'm probably way too close, perhaps touching you. If I'm not infringing on your space, I'm far enough away as to not affect your perception of your own space at all.
Keep and bear... I shouldn't have to explain this at all, though I'm perfectly happy to do so. Keep means... keep. To have around, nearby, handy, available, ready to access. I keep peanut butter in the cupboard. I can go get it any time, because I kept it;
The mistake people typically make is to stop here and imagine that the odds of existence of a god or gods are therefore equal with the non-existence of same.
The fact is, nobody can prove or disprove that the earth is filled with magical pink unicorns that simply move, scale back in size a little, and make some dirt for us to play in when we dig or deploy sensors. If you dig or scan for them, you won't find them. They're magical. You can't disprove them, and you can't prove them, either.
So now, is there a reasonable place to stand to trumpet that you have faith that these magical pink unicorns exist?
No.
And that is precisely the reason that the argument about proof or disproof of God(s) brings absolutely no validity to any religious claim.
We have, for various reasons, developed a tool called "science" that allows us to determine some general behaviors about the universe. We can apply the resulting tests and rules to ideas (yes, even ideas about Gods) in order to see if they are rational ideas.
When we do this to the magical unicorns, they rather quickly fail the test and we will immediately discard the idea.
A mentally healthy human being, not injured by lack of data, and/or gullibility, and/or fear of the unknown, will apply these same tests and rules to God(s), and discard the idea(s) just as quickly, and for precisely the same reasons as the idea of the magical pink unicorns.
...and hopefully proceed from there to develop a moral and ethical basis for their lives that isn't based upon an old storybook of magical tales written about, and probably by, peasants being oppressed by those higher up the social ladder than they.
I think an interesting and obvious question is, who gave the policeman the right to modify / interfere with something I own? From what authority does this arise? Looking at the constitution, I see no such grant of authority, nor any that could reasonably be construed as such a grant brought forward to modern technology.
I do, however, see the right to be secure with regard to one's effects. I don't see how this could be possible if it is ok for any person, governmentally sponsored or not, to mess with my effects.
Call it the Colbert flu? I don't think so. Colbert was just being funny, which is his job. It's why people watch him, and why they'll go so far as to stuff a poll. Plus, it was good publicity for the space station, led to an astronaut on his show, and even the naming of some widget or other after him. Treadmill? Whatever.
Anyway, Colbert is generally a positive influence. His "fake punditry" is pungent social comment, with the intent of nudging the his audience to think about these issues. While being funny, which keeps them coming back. All in all, a good thing. So I don't think naming a killer flu after him is appropriate. Entirely the wrong set of connotations, you see.
Flus are annoying, they show up wether you want them to or not, right in the middle of something else you were doing. Vaguely similar to your suggestion we name a nasty flu after a cool guy showing up on slashdot.
So in honor of your annoying and inappropriate post, I'm simply going to counter-suggest that we name H1N1 after you instead: The "Perens Flu." Does that seem fair to you?
About 14% country
And 75% rap
These are the components
of 100% crap
Thumping and bumping
And your old belt buckle
A gat and a nine
and your old truck'll...
[chorus]:
...produce 100 per cent
Stupid and ig-nor-ent
Bumpkin and ghetto
It ain't no libretto
It's just 100 per cent
crap.
Chords are G, A, and E. Bass line is subsonic and at least 12 db higher than the vocals. Wear a kerchief and cowboy boots when performing. Ad libbing about your dog is permitted.
No, control of softare isn't only useful for programmers. All that means is that if gmail changes something, and you don't like it anymore, you're stuck.
Look. If gmail -- an online service -- changes something, and you have server AND client source code, and you're a programmer, so you can change your client code, you MAY be able to work out a compatible new version, or you may not. You can change the server code all you want, but you can't make Google use it. Thank goodness. Because I trust them. But I *don't* trust you.
If you're not a programmer, having the source code won't help. Neither will having an old, incompatible version you refused to upgrade. Neither will having an older server of your own, because then you're not running gmail, are you? So in the end, you're probably stuck if you're a programmer, or not, and if you have source code, or not, and if you have a home server, or not. That's the risk of letting someone else hold your data. You want to have your own server, with your own code? Fine. When it gets out of sync with developments in the rest of the world, don't call me. Don't call anyone. It's your problem. Your code. Tough luck, Mr. Independent.
Your posts here on slashdot? They're gonna go away someday; when slashdot does, or perhaps sooner, when they have a policy change. Your ability to comment already evaporates shortly after the article posts. Your ability to edit is absolutely non-existent. The moderators act like frontal lobotomy patients with big red buttons they get a cookie for pushing, which do something completely unknown in another room entirely -- and that includes the slashdot mods, not just the users on a rampage.
You trade the benefit of community for the risks and costs of sharing. You wanna have a "slashdot" on your home server? Fine. You can have that. But you're not going to get the community, which is where the value is. Further, if you're really good at making your point, *no one* will post on your private slashdot, because you'll have convinced them that it's bad to let someone else hold your data.
Same thing with GMail. You trade some really smart, helpful people working on an email system that is really quite nice and VERY convenient, for some not very annoying ads on your web page and the risks associated with someone else holding your email. It's not a bad thing. You're not going to live forever, and things don't have to run or save your stuff forever. There can be both free and commercial software. Doesn't have to be GPL to be free, either.
Look here, this is a calculator I wrote to massage DSLR data and planet sizes to see if you could actually see something useful in the resulting image. It takes YOUR data, massages it, and gives you an answer. You don't get the source code, and it runs on my server, not your client. It's free. This, apparently, would terrify RMS. Which result would only make me laugh. You need the info it calculates? It's free. Go ahead. You won't use it because you don't have the source code? Then you're being silly. And so is RMS for his whole bizarre quest after purity of his own tired, restrictive, lawyer-infested vision.
Real freedom doesn't require lawyers or licenses. Count on it. You want real freedom, look to PD. There it is, pal. But that doesn't mean that independence trumps community, or that wanna-bes working in their basement have a ghost of a chance at beating commercial enterprises at the software game. There are very few freeware success stories, software that beats most commercial competition. Apache. Linux. PostgreSQL. That might be it. Gimp is so terrifyingly lame that Photoshop can sell for $800 or more. And that goes for most free software. Even those three examples still have competition. And the head of Oracle isn't exactly poor, is he? Microsoft does ok with servers and OS's despite Apache and Linux. So curious, these facts.
Public domain is literally in the public domain. It doesn't need a license of any kind. Once it's there, anyone can use it for any purpose at all. They can change it, add a license to the new thang, sell it, whatever they want. That's the point. As it stands when released to PD, it belongs to the public. Yours (and everyone else's) to use any way you like. You can't copyright it or limit the use of the public domain item itself, because it belongs to the public, but you can certainly pop it into your code, change it (or not) and then not tell anyone, or sell it, or give it away, or pretty much whatever.
For instance, here is a database I wrote. It's PD. Take it and do anything you'd like with it. You'll never hear from a lawyer, or be told that whatever you're using it for is somehow unacceptable, or be charged a fee by the author, or be dinged because you didn't credit the author. I wrote it from scratch, using no one else's libraries or code, and I now give it to you. And everyone else. See how easy that is? See how free that is?
He's the leader of an allegedly free (but not very) software movement. I write free software, and I neither follow him or agree with much of anything he says, writes, or promotes. I think public domain is the only truly free software philosophy, and have long used the presence of the GPL to motivate me to run the other way, far and fast before even looking at the code. Because I'm not interested in lawyers, and I'm not interested in telling anyone they can't use my code. Because it is my intent that it actually be free.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is they're *all* "shitty bums." So it rarely matters what you do in the voting booth.
The root problem with our voting system is that it is specifically designed, both at the citizen level, and at the legislator level, so that any two uninformed individuals (of which we have a vast surplus) can outvote any informed person (of which we have a severe shortage.) Consequently, our system is degenerating at a steady pace, our liberties evaporating, our privacy eroding, our founding ideals moldering.
There is a (ridiculous) mindset out there that says that reasonably qualifying individuals to vote is "prejudicial"; these loonies imagine that it is racist or otherwise unfairly disenfranchising. However, the only people it disenfranchises are people who fail to become informed on the issues they're voting for. Obviously handing over this responsibility to a representative was supposed to solve the "uninformed" problem, but also obviously, it doesn't.
Watching the country implode upon its own founding precepts has become the national spectator sport. The chief betting issue being only whether the next blow to the country will come from the legislature, the courts, or the executive.
They didn't kill the previous model, though, did they? This is just another model.
When they were talking about it a few months back we (family, we all have PSPs) looked at it, thought, no UMD drive, meh, not for us, and noted that (at the time) the old version was still to be made, so this was a non-issue.
You know, for kids who tend to be harder on things (and tend not to quite treat them as if they had spent hundreds of dollars on them, since generally, they didn't do that, the parents did), the no-drive, no UMD design makes a certain sort of sense. Tougher. Or at least, it could be.
Well, at least you have a sense of humor.
No, the reason you don't put people like me on the court is because you're not allowed to. The political parties control this process. Not you, or anyone like you. They control it by controlling who you get to vote for. Then they tell you who will be a judge. Because you -- and most people like you -- don't have the stones to stand up and say "wait a minute... these people aren't doing their jobs." As for "twentieth century jurisprudence", again, this is not the solution. This is one of the core problems.
In any case, my position has something real and important to back it up, that document known as the constitution. Your position has oodles of "jurisprudence" to back it up; reams and reams of reasoning like "interstate" means "intrastate", and I have no use for the mass of sophist nonsense you cite. These people have proven, over and over again, that they do not have the best interests of the citizens in mind, are not obeying the authority that allows them some very limited powers, and are rarely above declaring black is white in the soberest of tones.
Good luck with all that. Truly. I hope you never end up in Guantanimo, or even the local ass-fuckery (AKA prison.) I hope you never need your free speech, for you have abandoned it. I hope you never need to defend yourself and find yourself legislated out of the tools required. I hope you never need pot to give you appetite over your chemo, and find yourself dragged, again, off to the local ass-fuckery. I hope no one sends you "unacceptable" materials, and you find yourself on the wrong end of the moral indignation these putzes think stands in for clear thought. I wish you all the luck in the world. Your best luck would not agree with your vision of the world, and that would be a proper, liberty-centric civilization with a moderate dose of social intercare. But again, that's ok. Good luck anyway. Ta.
The issue at hand when the supreme court becomes involved is, is (the issue) constitutional, or is it not. So the document to refer to is -- tada -- the constitution. Nothing else.
It is the very reliance on previous and flawed rulings that screws up SCOTUS. And you'll note that the constitution does NOT require one to be a lawyer to be a supreme court justice. You know why? Because the constitution wasn't written for lawyers. It was written to formalize the authorization of the government in plain English.
Until you understand that, you don't understand your nation.
Scalia, who you seem to respect so, is a perfect example of this. In Parker, he and his cohorts emitted 75(!!!!) pages of complete and utter bullshit, when all they had to say -- in fact, what their JOB is to say -- was "2nd amendment of the constitution specifies shall not infringe... 14th applies the 2nd to you... you infringed... you lose. law struck down. Next case."
Lawyers -- and case law -- are not the solution. These things are the problem.
Your opinion of Nick is noted, and just FYI, also serves as a source of considerable amusement. No wonder you worship Scalia so.
I think most actually are, once you strip the illegal modifications that have been made to the legal system. Once the question is down to what the constitution actually says, the answer is pretty much staring us in the face, until we begin to pretend that "interstate" means "intrastate" and "reasonable" is undefined, and "make no law" means "make law", and "shall not be infringed" means "infringe all you want at every level", and "be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" means "unless we decide to look", and "shall not be deprived without due process" means "indefinite jailing on a whim", and "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" means "waterboard 'em, fuck 'em with a lightbulb, rape 'em, stick electric prods on their gonads", and "the right to a speedy and public trial" means "half a decade in prison without even a bloody phone call", and "no cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" means "make our prisons the involuntary ass fuck center of the universe", not to mention "waterboard 'em, rape 'em, torture 'em, isolate 'em, deny them representation, trial, due process of ANY kind..."
No, I think these things are pretty damned clear, actually. I just think our justice system and large swaths of our government are comprised of evil and/or deluded people. If you'd like, throw me a court case you think isn't clear or that I would find difficult to determine the constitutionality of the issue at hand. I'll be happy to see if I agree, and tell you why.
Is that a reason not to seek them? In fact, I have to ask, why do you even think that's germane?
More than one. For instance, the constitution CLEARLY protects all speech, political or not, by unequivocally forbidding the government from interfering with it. Yet she supported the use of government power to repress that speech. If you think that decision was made with regard to what the constitution authorizes the government to do, then you're very confused. There is no such authorization; not anywhere in the main body, not in the first amendment, and not in any other amendment. I think what you may be trying to say is that she may be putting reliance on the existing body of unauthorized law which imposes unauthorized power, but that is not at all the same thing as doing what the constitution authorizes her to do, or refraining from doing what it forbids.
That's not all, either. One case pointed out (quite correctly) that the use of a telephone for a local, intrastate call did not fall under the authorization of the commerce clause, which ONLY authorizes regulation of commerce BETWEEN the states. She decided wrongly there, as well. She thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. Even the majority of the current SCOTUS don't agree with her there; that's just idiotic (and yes, there are a lot of similar idiots out there, but they're uniformly and without exception people who cannot support that position. No one can, because the 2nd is, in fact, crystal clear.) You want to try and argue for her position on the 2nd, I'll be happy to completely and utterly destroy your arguments, point by point, with references. :o) And so on.
No sir, it is not. If the constitution says "the government can't do this", then it isn't authorized to, until or unless it has been changed via amendment. Doing said thing without authorization is unauthorized use of power, and is no different in character from the actions of any tin pot dictator you woul
The list of badly thought out rationalizations to prohibit free speech is indeed long, but the number of people who subscribe to them that I know is not large. Admittedly, I live in an area where even the state government has rejected the federal position on many of these issues -- we have laws *against* eminent domain, *against* federal firearms authority, and so forth. Perhaps the people in your area do indeed cleave as a majority to the ideas you mention above. If so, what a crying, pitiful shame. And what a broad condemnation of our educational system.
The constitution, inclusive of the first amendment, is the constituting authority for government power and structure. Anything to the contrary is by definition illegal and unauthorized, barring pursuit of article V. That's not opinion: That's fact. The legal system is being driven by people in violation of the highest law in the land. Fact. If you take comfort in the commonality of the number and position of the lawbreakers, that's your business. I don't. I only regret that there are no penalties associated with violation of the constitution's requirements; I have no doubt in my mind that is why legislators and judges alike feel free to "wing it" whenever they choose.
No, you have it right. I'm pushing against Sotomayor. I'm not in a position where I can nominate anyone. But I can raise my voice against poor choices.
However... If the nation really wanted a really good SCOTUS justice, it should obviously pick me. I'd protect rights as written in the constitution, and my response to those who would twist its words to try to get what they want would uniformly "seek an amendment." But guess what? I misspent my teenage years (drugs) and part of my young adult life [crazed musician], I'm not wealthy, and frankly, I couldn't win the office of dogcatcher on my best day. So my input is limited to speaking my opinion, and defending it as best I can, in the face of whatever opposition arises. From time to time, someone shows me where I'm wrong, and I adjust my opinions accordingly. That's just as much of a win for me as is enlightening someone else, as (very) occasionally happens.
I suppose if I had a choice in the matter, I'd probably pick a thinker like Nick Gillespie. But I don't.
Look, it's simple. Really. I'm not a proponent of a country where only political speech is free. I'm not a proponent of a country where "regulate trade between the states" means "regulate trade within the states." I'm not a proponent of a country where a local telephone call is a matter of federal legislation. I'm not a proponent of a country where "shall make no law" means "let's have a party making laws." I'm not a proponent of a country where judges think that the clearly laid out details of what are required for a reasonable search by the constitution are irrelevant, and they can make up their own ideas. I'm not a proponent of a country where the government will allow the taking of your property for ANY reason other than major public works of national importance to everyone.
Sotomayor stands opposite to where I do on all these issues, and it is completely fair to say that all of these have roots in the plain English of the constitution.
It doesn't do that much good to "look at the merits of each case" if you make up your answers without regard to the highest law in the land. Your "nuances", no matter how finely drawn, are going to be of very low quality, and that's exactly what I see when I look at her rulings. She has repeatedly drawn constitutionally invalid and harmful decisions when put to the test. So I don't want her on the supreme court.
Is it? Rather, I think that pointing to the (admittedly) low quality of the judges in the supreme court today and using that as some kind of rationale for putting in another lousy justice is very weird reasoning. If you think that they're poor, the right thing to do is to try to replace them if and when possible with better people. Not by adding yet another mediocre, clue-free seat of the pants thinker to the heap. Here's an opportunity to add a new person. Why settle for another poor performer? I mean, if you agree with her, that's another thing entirely, but if you disagree, why settle for less? Do you really believe she's the best candidate possible, or even close? Or are you simply advocating for laziness?
And again, my objection isn't just about the 1st amendment, and I never said it was. So let's stick with arguing about what I did say, ok?
Please see my other reply. Same issues were raised and I have disposed of them there. If you have further comments, please use that part of the thread.
I don't buy it. Conventional wisdom among who? Almost no one I know - and that's quite a few people - subscribes to the idea that the US government -- at any level -- should repress speech and opinion. My impression is that is just propaganda we hear from the government itself. Who do you consider "conventional"? Old USSR expatriates? Saudi Shaikhs? Colonel Gaddafi? Sonia herself? Seriously, who can you point to that supports the government should suppress free speech and opinion position such that you characterize it as "conventional"? Do you think that because the government says so, it must be so? They lie, you know -- they lie a lot.
Well, there certainly isn't if people are passive in the face of the appointment of known to be constitutionally destructive judges. Are you suggesting I just say "well, she's only confused on about half the amendments and the commerce clause, so, "Hurray Obama"? Or that I pimp her as a good idea because Scalia is a complete and utter idiot and she isn't? It isn't like she's going to replace him, you know. Why shouldn't I push for someone better than her, since she has such obvious and profound warts? I'm sorry, I just can't see your POV here.
The fact that it isn't just the first amendment she screws up on. She screws up on the commerce clause; she screws up on the 2nd amendment (and badly, and even according to the most recent SCOTUS ruling); she screws up on the 4th amendment; she screws up on the 5th amendment.
That is why she's a constitutional nightmare. Add to that the fact that she thinks she's a "wise latina" (oh, brother) and that her POV is inherently better than that of a "white male." She doesn't even belong on the bench, never mind on the bench of the highest court in the land, as far as I'm concerned. Do you really want to get her in there and see how much of what remains of constitutional principles she completely misinterprets?
No, sorry, I'm not going to give her first amendment credit because she sometimes gets some parts of it right. Not to mention the fact that she fails hard in several other constitutional areas (which the blog post also points out.) Her entire job is to get all of it right all the time. It's plain English, for crying out loud:
"...shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
This applies within the states via the 14th amendment's incorporation doctrine. For a judge to misunderstand that they either have to have a major head injury or be an outright traitor to their oath. How is it that I, a common person, easily understand this, and this "wise latina" (her own characterization, not mine) does not???
She definitely doesn't deserve to serve as one of the nine final arbiters of 1st amendment rights if she thinks muzzling young people's speech and opinions outside of school by enforcement actions inside of school is an appropriate use of government power. She directly creates an environment here where a person's free speech outside of school will engender thoughts (and correct ones, at that) of government punishment and intervention. The woman is a constitutional nightmare.
I found her name spelled both ways in many locations; I had to pick one, so I chose the one Google kept correcting me to use in the searches. Frankly, I don't feel threatened by her name, only her actions.
With regard to my research, follow the links and argue the data, or be ignored. Your initial sally, trying to impeach my political position over the spelling of a name, is about on the 3rd grade level. If I give you extra credit, that is. Ah, the Internet. Where anyone can post. [stares]
She's an outright constitutional nightmare, chief or associate position notwithstanding. Exactly the kind of thinker who erodes the constitution at a terrifying pace. Her history as a judge contains an amazing number of constitutional misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and outright bewilderment.
Odds are excellent that's she's going to be confirmed, though; get ready to bend over for "enhanced legislation." The light in this tunnel is definitely a train.
I still have working, fully loaded SS-50 bus machines from about 1982 with all kinds of cool cards in them like speech synthesizers, A/D and D/A, graphics cards, memory, etc. I wrote a lot of 6800 and 6809 assembly code back then... in 1994, I wrote a complete 6809 system emulation, including the OS from the time (6809 Flex) and emulation of an arcade graphics subsystem I designed so I'd always have a working "machine" to fool with my old code. Virtual disk drives, ports, timers, etc. Still runs great; I run it under XP, which runs under Parallels, which runs under OSX. :o)
I also have a SOROC terminal and a paper tape reader, and a mint tiny BASIC on paper tape (for the 8080.) The first machine I had that I didn't actually build out of TTL was based on a National Semiconductor ISP-8000-8A SC/MP I got in 1976. I published an article about using the SC/MP as a Baudot printer driver with the SWTPC 6800 in the November 1977 issue of Kilobaud. My first published work, in fact.
The first machine I ever owned I built out of TTL in... I think 1970... as there wasn't any other option at the time. A couple of 74181 ALUs in the middle, all manner of other stuff in there, register memory files.... Man, that was a wild nest of wires and sockets. The power supply was a nightmare. But I learned a lot doing it. You can't (or maybe you can) imagine how enthused I was when the 8080 and 6800 hit the market, and the downright euphoria I felt when the 6809 came out.
I still think that the 6809 was one of the best designed MPUs ever from a programming standpoint. I can still write 6800 and 6809 opcodes straight to paper. Even fairly complex things like the 6809's LEA instructions. And calculate its 2's complement branch offsets more or less instantly. Now there's a chunk of neurons I'll never get back....
I did some work for Centuri (an arcade game machine manufacturer) where I built them boards that would plug in where the 6502 was in their then-current hardware, and put a 6809 there instead. Just a few gates and some socket hardware, and goodbye 6502! Lord, I despised the 6502. What a bass-ackwards... nevermind. Then I wrote them a few graphics demos that left a few executives spitting coffee. Nothing like a hardware multiply (and the ability to do easy division by multiplying via a table of reciprocals) to step up from an MPU where the main claim to fame is bloody 8-bit role-reversed index registers...
Oldest working non computer hardware I own is a console AM radio from the 1930s. It's even still mostly original... it'd almost certainly work better if I went in there and replaced a lot of components with their modern equivalents, but it's more interesting as is, and in fact it still works quite well. Doesn't complete with my current radio gear, but then again, the currents stuff doesn't have the charm of a polished wood cabinet, either.
Darwin, I'm oooold. :o)
Thats because you subscribe to the idea that intentional misinterpretation and misunderstanding rises to the level of legitimate public debate. It doesn't. There is no legitimate debate over the 2nd. No law is authorized that limits the keeping or bearing of arms. Period. No debate. Any such law is in direct violation of the constitution; any judicial or congressional action supporting such a law is a violation of oath. The 2nd is crystal clear on the matter.
When some moron claims "militia" means national guard (or any of a number of other idiotic claims), that's no more debate than claiming black is white - it's drivel. Your example was flawed. That's why I posted (and you failed to comprehend paragraph 3 in my original post as well.) Please don't pretend the plain English of the 2nd amendment is debatable. It only encourages the morons and those who wish to ignore the constitution to achieve constitutionally destructive ends.
The 2nd amendment is easily analyzed if you're not starting with a need to fulfill an agenda. It is written in plain English, and its context is the key: It's in a document specifying the constituting authority of the federal and in some cases, state governments.
The 2nd is made up of two phrases; the first is explicatory, that is, it explains some things, but it contains no instructions. Because it contains no instructions, it is entirely irrelevant unless the 2nd phrase, the operative (because it contains instructions) phrase, refers to it -- which it does not do.
As for settled, this is a meaningless term in our system of law. Everything is in flux; everything is subject to revision and/or amendment. That's not the problem. The problem is intentional twisting of the meaning of the document; twisting that becomes perfectly clear after careful analysis. Such twisting is action of those who desire a system of law not authorized by the constitution.
Here's a complete analysis of the 2nd I wrote some time back:
First, there is the explicatory phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"; this phrase serves to provide a rationale for what follows. It doesn't instruct the government to do anything, it simply explains something the framers thought would help readers understand why the operative phrase to come says what it does.
Even so, let's look at it. Militia meant all able bodied males of a reasonable age, such that they could rationally be expected to fight. It does not mean "national guard", nor does it mean "army" or "state militia." If you doubt me, look it up. I'll wait.
Well regulated meant consistent, and in this specific phrase, it meant consistently armed. Laws on the books at that time went so far as to specify exactly what that meant; so many bullets, so much powder in a container suitable to keep it dry, etc.
The "security of a free state" means either to retain the state of being free, or it means to retain a political state, in which freedom is secure. I admit that I have no particular preference in the reading; they could have meant either one. They both seem to amount to the same thing to me in the final analysis.
So basically what they were saying here in modern English is that consistently armed and able fighting people are needed in order to retain freedom. Once we unveil the somewhat obfuscatory archaic English, it makes perfect sense. Of course such people would be needed.
Regardless, again, it's not an instruction to the government. It's just an explanation.
Now we come to the actual instruction, the operative phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is as clear today as when it was written. Infringed still means today what it meant then; The Oxford dictionary has it as:
But surely you knew that. Infringe isn't an uncommon word. When I begin to infringe on your personal space, I'm too close. I'm just inside the edges. When I seriously infringe on your personal space, I'm probably way too close, perhaps touching you. If I'm not infringing on your space, I'm far enough away as to not affect your perception of your own space at all.
Keep and bear... I shouldn't have to explain this at all, though I'm perfectly happy to do so. Keep means... keep. To have around, nearby, handy, available, ready to access. I keep peanut butter in the cupboard. I can go get it any time, because I kept it;
The mistake people typically make is to stop here and imagine that the odds of existence of a god or gods are therefore equal with the non-existence of same.
The fact is, nobody can prove or disprove that the earth is filled with magical pink unicorns that simply move, scale back in size a little, and make some dirt for us to play in when we dig or deploy sensors. If you dig or scan for them, you won't find them. They're magical. You can't disprove them, and you can't prove them, either.
So now, is there a reasonable place to stand to trumpet that you have faith that these magical pink unicorns exist?
No.
And that is precisely the reason that the argument about proof or disproof of God(s) brings absolutely no validity to any religious claim.
We have, for various reasons, developed a tool called "science" that allows us to determine some general behaviors about the universe. We can apply the resulting tests and rules to ideas (yes, even ideas about Gods) in order to see if they are rational ideas.
When we do this to the magical unicorns, they rather quickly fail the test and we will immediately discard the idea.
A mentally healthy human being, not injured by lack of data, and/or gullibility, and/or fear of the unknown, will apply these same tests and rules to God(s), and discard the idea(s) just as quickly, and for precisely the same reasons as the idea of the magical pink unicorns.
Vulnerability to religion (diagram)
I think an interesting and obvious question is, who gave the policeman the right to modify / interfere with something I own? From what authority does this arise? Looking at the constitution, I see no such grant of authority, nor any that could reasonably be construed as such a grant brought forward to modern technology.
I do, however, see the right to be secure with regard to one's effects. I don't see how this could be possible if it is ok for any person, governmentally sponsored or not, to mess with my effects.
Call it the Colbert flu? I don't think so. Colbert was just being funny, which is his job. It's why people watch him, and why they'll go so far as to stuff a poll. Plus, it was good publicity for the space station, led to an astronaut on his show, and even the naming of some widget or other after him. Treadmill? Whatever.
Anyway, Colbert is generally a positive influence. His "fake punditry" is pungent social comment, with the intent of nudging the his audience to think about these issues. While being funny, which keeps them coming back. All in all, a good thing. So I don't think naming a killer flu after him is appropriate. Entirely the wrong set of connotations, you see.
Flus are annoying, they show up wether you want them to or not, right in the middle of something else you were doing. Vaguely similar to your suggestion we name a nasty flu after a cool guy showing up on slashdot.
So in honor of your annoying and inappropriate post, I'm simply going to counter-suggest that we name H1N1 after you instead: The "Perens Flu." Does that seem fair to you?
About 14% country
And 75% rap
These are the components
of 100% crap
Thumping and bumping
And your old belt buckle
A gat and a nine
and your old truck'll...
[chorus]:
Stupid and ig-nor-ent
Bumpkin and ghetto
It ain't no libretto
It's just 100 per cent
crap.
Chords are G, A, and E. Bass line is subsonic and at least 12 db higher than the vocals. Wear a kerchief and cowboy boots when performing. Ad libbing about your dog is permitted.
I suppose that ends all speculation that rap isn't cricket, eh, old man?
For US law, decent answers and pointers are here.
For other countries, you'd have to dig around.
Look. If gmail -- an online service -- changes something, and you have server AND client source code, and you're a programmer, so you can change your client code, you MAY be able to work out a compatible new version, or you may not. You can change the server code all you want, but you can't make Google use it. Thank goodness. Because I trust them. But I *don't* trust you.
If you're not a programmer, having the source code won't help. Neither will having an old, incompatible version you refused to upgrade. Neither will having an older server of your own, because then you're not running gmail, are you? So in the end, you're probably stuck if you're a programmer, or not, and if you have source code, or not, and if you have a home server, or not. That's the risk of letting someone else hold your data. You want to have your own server, with your own code? Fine. When it gets out of sync with developments in the rest of the world, don't call me. Don't call anyone. It's your problem. Your code. Tough luck, Mr. Independent.
Your posts here on slashdot? They're gonna go away someday; when slashdot does, or perhaps sooner, when they have a policy change. Your ability to comment already evaporates shortly after the article posts. Your ability to edit is absolutely non-existent. The moderators act like frontal lobotomy patients with big red buttons they get a cookie for pushing, which do something completely unknown in another room entirely -- and that includes the slashdot mods, not just the users on a rampage.
You trade the benefit of community for the risks and costs of sharing. You wanna have a "slashdot" on your home server? Fine. You can have that. But you're not going to get the community, which is where the value is. Further, if you're really good at making your point, *no one* will post on your private slashdot, because you'll have convinced them that it's bad to let someone else hold your data.
Same thing with GMail. You trade some really smart, helpful people working on an email system that is really quite nice and VERY convenient, for some not very annoying ads on your web page and the risks associated with someone else holding your email. It's not a bad thing. You're not going to live forever, and things don't have to run or save your stuff forever. There can be both free and commercial software. Doesn't have to be GPL to be free, either.
Look here, this is a calculator I wrote to massage DSLR data and planet sizes to see if you could actually see something useful in the resulting image. It takes YOUR data, massages it, and gives you an answer. You don't get the source code, and it runs on my server, not your client. It's free. This, apparently, would terrify RMS. Which result would only make me laugh. You need the info it calculates? It's free. Go ahead. You won't use it because you don't have the source code? Then you're being silly. And so is RMS for his whole bizarre quest after purity of his own tired, restrictive, lawyer-infested vision.
Real freedom doesn't require lawyers or licenses. Count on it. You want real freedom, look to PD. There it is, pal. But that doesn't mean that independence trumps community, or that wanna-bes working in their basement have a ghost of a chance at beating commercial enterprises at the software game. There are very few freeware success stories, software that beats most commercial competition. Apache. Linux. PostgreSQL. That might be it. Gimp is so terrifyingly lame that Photoshop can sell for $800 or more. And that goes for most free software. Even those three examples still have competition. And the head of Oracle isn't exactly poor, is he? Microsoft does ok with servers and OS's despite Apache and Linux. So curious, these facts.
RMS (or RMS minions) ha
Public domain is literally in the public domain. It doesn't need a license of any kind. Once it's there, anyone can use it for any purpose at all. They can change it, add a license to the new thang, sell it, whatever they want. That's the point. As it stands when released to PD, it belongs to the public. Yours (and everyone else's) to use any way you like. You can't copyright it or limit the use of the public domain item itself, because it belongs to the public, but you can certainly pop it into your code, change it (or not) and then not tell anyone, or sell it, or give it away, or pretty much whatever.
For instance, here is a database I wrote. It's PD. Take it and do anything you'd like with it. You'll never hear from a lawyer, or be told that whatever you're using it for is somehow unacceptable, or be charged a fee by the author, or be dinged because you didn't credit the author. I wrote it from scratch, using no one else's libraries or code, and I now give it to you. And everyone else. See how easy that is? See how free that is?
He's the leader of an allegedly free (but not very) software movement. I write free software, and I neither follow him or agree with much of anything he says, writes, or promotes. I think public domain is the only truly free software philosophy, and have long used the presence of the GPL to motivate me to run the other way, far and fast before even looking at the code. Because I'm not interested in lawyers, and I'm not interested in telling anyone they can't use my code. Because it is my intent that it actually be free.