Slave owners like to have their human property rights protected but they aren't nearly as bad as a government that protects its human property rights.
There is no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that would allow the majority of the expenditures of the US Federal government. The name of the game is encroachment.
Sure, they'll try to sneak that in, but the real agenda is government control of which people can self-manufacture what. For example, think about the recent debacle over the printed firearms.
The point here is that there is a race between the recognition that the government is essentially lawless (its "laws" are not laws by any reasonable Constitutional interpretation) and the imposition of government control on people to make the world safe for lawless government. The incipient maggot-meat is basically hoping that people won't understand the real point behind such DRM legislation, which is not to protect intellectual property but rather to protect human property owned by government.
The article conflates the granting of a patent with the passage of a law requiring the use of the patent in all devices.
I'm sure there is a lot of incipient maggot meat clamoring for such legislation but it remains to be seen whether the maggots get to their brains before they can get it signed into law.
To tease apart causation from mere correlation, science came up with something called a "controlled experiment". That no variation on that phrase appears in the article at Slate, nor in any of the responses, indicates a level of abject ignorance that is nothing less than a civilization's tragedy.
If people want to deal with social science causation, they must stop arguing and start experimenting. But how? How can we experiment in the social sciences in a way that demands consent of the human subjects at the same time as providing experimental control?
Secession is necessary to free society. Free society starts with mutual consent. Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. "Freedom From" compliments "Freedom To".
Secession is necessary to true social science: We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments. This is true of all science. Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions. In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results. We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence.
In a free scientific society, an individual is subject to treatment only after giving informed consent.
These two pillars of social good -- truth and freedom -- stand upon the foundation of secession.
Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights -- the sine qua non of "liberal democracy" -- must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.
SLAVERY
Getting right to the point that people need addressed whenever "secession" is uttered:
Abolition of slavery is support of individual secession.
Slaves want to secede from their "owners" just as others want to -- and do -- secede from societies they find objectionable. The difference between slavery and others turns solely on whether the individual's right to secede is realized. All who are denied secession are slaves: their consent is violated.
If men from Maine choose to support the right of secession of slaves by marching on South Carolina to kill unrepentant slave owners -- every last one of them -- those men from Maine in no way lose their own rights. Men retaining their humanity may differ over whether it is wisest to intervene in such a way – or to intervene at all. For example, should a government which is capable of raising taxes do so for the waging of war against slavery or, better for the purchase of slaves to be freed from their dependent owners? Eminent domain “taking” arguments aside, just men may, as well, differ over whether it is wisest to put down a rabid animal, or to treat it. The compromise upon which the United States was founded was flawed, perhaps fatally, by its incorporation of slave states.
Likewise, this in no way supports the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or The Union. It supports only the 13th Amendment. Despite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's pretenses to the contrary, it is still a "badge of slavery" to be forced into association with others. Likewise the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 compounded this badge of slavery born of the so-called “Civil Rights Movement”.
It is not questionable that the framers of the Bill of Rights had a notion of the People being able to fight a tyrannical government as being the last resort safeguard of a free state.
So it is equally not questionable that anything the government can do to arm itself, the people can do under the Second Amendment.
You can have any opinion you want about the rights of man and you can even have those put into the Constitution where they have the effect of law. The only problem is, you have to amend the Constitution to do that and that's just too inconvenient for you. So, instead, you support lawlessness.
So I presume that if the US Supreme Court gets packed with evangelical morons who rule that the old testament punishment of stoning for homosexuality is Constitutional, you would go along with them because, after all, they ARE the "Supreme" court.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the doctrine that only priests are qualified to read Holy Scripture and that laymen are just supposed to do whatever the priesthood tells them to do.
I'm perfectly willing to let people like you, who believe that you are incapable of understanding the Constitution, live among each other on your own territory as long as people like me can sit on our own territory, pull up a chair at the border with a big case of popcorn and see how well that works out for you.
On the other hand, if you, like the old theocrats, insist that we're incapable of understanding basic principles of law, choose to impose your quasi-theocracy on us, you'll have a real mess on your hands -- sort of like the 30 years war. Remember how that turned out?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly specifies that "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."
It is clearly an "infringement" on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for there to be Federal limits on the right to manufacture Arms.
Since unconstitutional legislation is not law, there is no law against manufacture of Arms. The real question is: What to do about an outlaw government?
Give the jerk his due. On condition that he train his replacements in the current business, spin off a new company to let the jerk pursue his best brilliant idea, the potential of which you are too stupid to understand. Provide enough capital to hire the necessary management to make it a business success if it is viable and then provide no further investment.
What they should have done is actually measure the zeitgeist by using the same technique and same data, but carefully construct the questionnaire to cover a wide range of "moral" issues to see which of them most construct the zeitgeist.
For example:
"Do you believe African are inferior to Europeans?"
Change to:
"Do you believe Africans aren't inferior to Europeans?"
I'll bet virtually 100% would detect the change and not argue in favor of the opposite.
I'm sure there will be a bunch of folks who read this article and think: "If I have promiscuous sex, it will alter my DNA to have more disease immunity!"
Don't worry. I saw this guy volunteer to pay for the downside since the risk is so small. Shoot him an email and ask him when the check is going to arrive in the mail. If he doesn't pay up, maybe you could just shoot him.
That makes it about 1997 since you had any ground-truth experience with the world of programming.
Here's a clue:
From 1997 until sometime in 2000, there was an explosion in programming jobs and an equivalent explosion in the number of people being imported from around the world, both in physical and virtual terms, to take those jobs. In 2000 the explosion of jobs reversed and imploded. The implosion, as in an atomic blast, was when the real damage was done to anyone not tied into an ethnic nepotism network. If you weren't lashed to such a network, you were blown away by the malestrom -- discarded. Those lashed to their ethnic networks took pay cuts, sometimes severe, but they usually didn't lose their houses. Since in the US, to be in an ethnic nepotism network that protects the interests of founding stock Americans is to be a "White Supremacist" and the government is more interested in rooting out "White Supremacism" than just about anything else, the end result was a catastrophic demographic shift in the programming industry that occurred almost invisibly and overnight. If you are a beneficiary of "white privilege" avail yourself of the only thing you really have going for you at this point: Social Security Disability.
The outbreak of the US Civil War was only 9 years before the cited "1870" and 4 years before the earliest year that TFA could have associated with 1870 since the graph describes the years as "5 year intervals".
Moreover, it was a unique peak in US history.
This guy's model needs an overhaul -- either that or its intend use is useless for phenomena that are really interesting.
If China bought US debt with money it stole from the US via intellectual property theft then it makes perfect sense to link them.
What doesn't make sense is for others, not engaged in an economic attack on the US, to view US securities as any less viable. Indeed, by defending its economic interests, the US would be demonstrating it, rather than China, would be in a better position to repay debt.
You guys are merely saying that China is a powerful enough criminal gang that they have gotten themselves into a position where they can extort the US's citizens out of their intellectual property by, say, dumping US securities on the market.
In a sane world, this would be called a "national security threat" and be dealt with accordingly.
Eejit writes: "And it is funny that you should mention that US cannot inflate the currency to get rid of these notes. From what I understand from current policies, that is pretty much what US govt is currently doing."
Yes and that is a lot more likely to render US Treasuries untrustworthy than is lien imposition for criminal conduct.
Eejit writes: "You dont understand. Treasury notes are not some sort of agreement between two govts."
Yeah I guess the People's Bank of China doesn't hold any US Treasuries and Chinese government doesn't have anything resembling an industrial policy that might be construed as systematic looting of US IP.
No they don't. There are all sorts of implicit terms. For example, China has the reasonable expectation that the US won't inflate its currency like Mugabe was President. An implicit term that the US can expect from China is that it will not engage in economic crimes against the US at a level that dwarfs the US debt held by China.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that would allow the majority of the expenditures of the US Federal government. The name of the game is encroachment.
The point here is that there is a race between the recognition that the government is essentially lawless (its "laws" are not laws by any reasonable Constitutional interpretation) and the imposition of government control on people to make the world safe for lawless government. The incipient maggot-meat is basically hoping that people won't understand the real point behind such DRM legislation, which is not to protect intellectual property but rather to protect human property owned by government.
I'm sure there is a lot of incipient maggot meat clamoring for such legislation but it remains to be seen whether the maggots get to their brains before they can get it signed into law.
If people want to deal with social science causation, they must stop arguing and start experimenting. But how? How can we experiment in the social sciences in a way that demands consent of the human subjects at the same time as providing experimental control?
The answer is Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society:
Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society
by James Bowery
INTRODUCTION
Secession is necessary to free society. Free society starts with mutual consent. Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. "Freedom From" compliments "Freedom To".
Secession is necessary to true social science: We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments. This is true of all science. Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions. In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results. We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence.
In a free scientific society, an individual is subject to treatment only after giving informed consent.
These two pillars of social good -- truth and freedom -- stand upon the foundation of secession.
Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights -- the sine qua non of "liberal democracy" -- must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.
SLAVERY
Getting right to the point that people need addressed whenever "secession" is uttered:
Abolition of slavery is support of individual secession.
Slaves want to secede from their "owners" just as others want to -- and do -- secede from societies they find objectionable. The difference between slavery and others turns solely on whether the individual's right to secede is realized. All who are denied secession are slaves: their consent is violated.
If men from Maine choose to support the right of secession of slaves by marching on South Carolina to kill unrepentant slave owners -- every last one of them -- those men from Maine in no way lose their own rights. Men retaining their humanity may differ over whether it is wisest to intervene in such a way – or to intervene at all. For example, should a government which is capable of raising taxes do so for the waging of war against slavery or, better for the purchase of slaves to be freed from their dependent owners? Eminent domain “taking” arguments aside, just men may, as well, differ over whether it is wisest to put down a rabid animal, or to treat it. The compromise upon which the United States was founded was flawed, perhaps fatally, by its incorporation of slave states.
Likewise, this in no way supports the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or The Union. It supports only the 13th Amendment. Despite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's pretenses to the contrary, it is still a "badge of slavery" to be forced into association with others. Likewise the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 compounded this badge of slavery born of the so-called “Civil Rights Movement”.
"Freedo
A reasonable amendment to the Second would be to limit the power of the government's armaments to be commensurate with the people's.
So it is equally not questionable that anything the government can do to arm itself, the people can do under the Second Amendment.
You can have any opinion you want about the rights of man and you can even have those put into the Constitution where they have the effect of law. The only problem is, you have to amend the Constitution to do that and that's just too inconvenient for you. So, instead, you support lawlessness.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the doctrine that only priests are qualified to read Holy Scripture and that laymen are just supposed to do whatever the priesthood tells them to do.
I'm perfectly willing to let people like you, who believe that you are incapable of understanding the Constitution, live among each other on your own territory as long as people like me can sit on our own territory, pull up a chair at the border with a big case of popcorn and see how well that works out for you.
On the other hand, if you, like the old theocrats, insist that we're incapable of understanding basic principles of law, choose to impose your quasi-theocracy on us, you'll have a real mess on your hands -- sort of like the 30 years war. Remember how that turned out?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly specifies that "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." It is clearly an "infringement" on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for there to be Federal limits on the right to manufacture Arms. Since unconstitutional legislation is not law, there is no law against manufacture of Arms. The real question is: What to do about an outlaw government?
Oh, was that SEXIST of me?
Give the jerk his due. On condition that he train his replacements in the current business, spin off a new company to let the jerk pursue his best brilliant idea, the potential of which you are too stupid to understand. Provide enough capital to hire the necessary management to make it a business success if it is viable and then provide no further investment.
As luck would have it, yesterday's featured TED Talk was on the importance of version control systems -- specifically GIT -- in non-technical applications.
For example:
"Do you believe African are inferior to Europeans?"
Change to:
"Do you believe Africans aren't inferior to Europeans?"
I'll bet virtually 100% would detect the change and not argue in favor of the opposite.
Since when are the works of Kant cited in the Constitution? This sounds like religion posing as therapeutic state posing as Constitutional government.
I'm sure there will be a bunch of folks who read this article and think: "If I have promiscuous sex, it will alter my DNA to have more disease immunity!"
Don't worry. I saw this guy volunteer to pay for the downside since the risk is so small. Shoot him an email and ask him when the check is going to arrive in the mail. If he doesn't pay up, maybe you could just shoot him.
That makes it about 1997 since you had any ground-truth experience with the world of programming.
Here's a clue:
From 1997 until sometime in 2000, there was an explosion in programming jobs and an equivalent explosion in the number of people being imported from around the world, both in physical and virtual terms, to take those jobs. In 2000 the explosion of jobs reversed and imploded. The implosion, as in an atomic blast, was when the real damage was done to anyone not tied into an ethnic nepotism network. If you weren't lashed to such a network, you were blown away by the malestrom -- discarded. Those lashed to their ethnic networks took pay cuts, sometimes severe, but they usually didn't lose their houses. Since in the US, to be in an ethnic nepotism network that protects the interests of founding stock Americans is to be a "White Supremacist" and the government is more interested in rooting out "White Supremacism" than just about anything else, the end result was a catastrophic demographic shift in the programming industry that occurred almost invisibly and overnight. If you are a beneficiary of "white privilege" avail yourself of the only thing you really have going for you at this point: Social Security Disability.
Moreover, it was a unique peak in US history.
This guy's model needs an overhaul -- either that or its intend use is useless for phenomena that are really interesting.
Whatever...
What doesn't make sense is for others, not engaged in an economic attack on the US, to view US securities as any less viable. Indeed, by defending its economic interests, the US would be demonstrating it, rather than China, would be in a better position to repay debt.
In a sane world, this would be called a "national security threat" and be dealt with accordingly.
It's NOT a problem with targeting specific contracts since they are held by the liable parties.
Yes and that is a lot more likely to render US Treasuries untrustworthy than is lien imposition for criminal conduct.
Yeah I guess the People's Bank of China doesn't hold any US Treasuries and Chinese government doesn't have anything resembling an industrial policy that might be construed as systematic looting of US IP.
No they don't. There are all sorts of implicit terms. For example, China has the reasonable expectation that the US won't inflate its currency like Mugabe was President. An implicit term that the US can expect from China is that it will not engage in economic crimes against the US at a level that dwarfs the US debt held by China.