You've got it exactly backwards, and unfortunately many folks have a hard time understanding Constitutional logic.
First, you have *ALL* rights. ALL means ALL. Whether they are enumerated/defined or not, you have them. The Constitution was written specifically in this manner, so not to suggest that the People got their rights from the Government or laws, but rather the other way around.
The impact of such logical construction of the Constitution means that rights that were undefinable or even unfathomable back then were *automatically* protected from infringement by the Government.
Amendment 10 further extended this logic, by actually explicitly stating all rights are reserved by the People and the States, rather than just implying it.
Constitutional logic is not clear cut. There's a reason people still debate on it 200 years after its ratification. Your points have merit, but there are other views.
First, there needs to be an agreement upon what is and isn't a right before people can have them. There is no recognition of a right until this happens.
Second, Amendment 10 lacks the language to make this against implied powers by the federal government. The Articles of Confederation did have this language, by including the word "expressly" (AoC: Article II), and this inability to adapt by implied powers is part of why it failed.
Positive liberties are explicitly granted to the people by the government, for example the government granting the people the privilege to vote, rather than the people inherently having a right to vote.
Negative liberties are those inherent to people that are free from interference, for example the liberty to build one's house on unclaimed land, or the liberty to travel freely and not have to present papers to some government functionary.
No. Both positive and negative rights are inherent in people. Positive rights can be read as "freedom to" something, while negative rights would be "freedom from" something. Many of these are interchangeable to be read in different ways. For example, I have a right to privacy, or I have freedom from unreasonable search.
Government comes into play by recognizing both types of rights. This is where the disagreement comes into play of what is and isn't a right.
Hear "That wasn't in your file..." enough times and you can become concerned with hardcopy records too. Is it the only way to keep records? No, and it shouldn't be. Is the Age of Paper over? Not a chance.
Paper is for people stuck in the past. This is a ploy to make money off of people resistant to using new technology. There are many more advantages to using digital data than just saving trees.
Paper is for people needing a physical record; deeds, titles, court documents, contracts...
"I'm sorry, but the hard disk crashed," isn't acceptable.
Yeah, you probably aren't. You. Other people, given free reign, will use pseudoephedrine in a meth lab. 15/day happens to be where they've currently drawn the line. Should they change it to 50/day? 1000/day? Unrestricted?
Because someone will abuse it, everyone needs to be protected!
15/day. Do you really need to buy more than 15 a day?
Buying in bulk from a wholesaler like Costco where they're in 60 pill containers... Damn me for not wanting to make the trip once a week for a twice daily pill.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a British article. As such, the writing style is correct.
RedHat bought out Qumranet (the main developers of Linux's KVM) back in September. They aren't as behind as you may think they are.
HDD Upgrade Program
TA typo'd Georgian into Gregorian.
http://music.inet.ge/
Resistance to coal power plants has started. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802452.html
First, there needs to be an agreement upon what is and isn't a right before people can have them. There is no recognition of a right until this happens.
Second, Amendment 10 lacks the language to make this against implied powers by the federal government. The Articles of Confederation did have this language, by including the word "expressly" (AoC: Article II), and this inability to adapt by implied powers is part of why it failed.
Government comes into play by recognizing both types of rights. This is where the disagreement comes into play of what is and isn't a right.
Just the executables.
The current method of getting Linux to run on the 360 involves modified shaders on the King Kong game. Such shaders wouldn't run if they were signed.
NeoOffice's code cannot be used by OpenOffice due to licenses (and copyright assignment).
o ffice.org_and_NeoOffice
OpenOffice's take on it: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FAQ_Open
NeoOffice's: http://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/faq.php#11
If it's a formal asking, yes. They're called Congressional subpoenas. Failure to due so can result in contempt of Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Hear "That wasn't in your file..." enough times and you can become concerned with hardcopy records too. Is it the only way to keep records? No, and it shouldn't be. Is the Age of Paper over? Not a chance.
"I'm sorry, but the hard disk crashed," isn't acceptable.
Because Verizon isn't a renamed Bell Atlantic?
Yeah, you probably aren't. You. Other people, given free reign, will use pseudoephedrine in a meth lab. 15/day happens to be where they've currently drawn the line. Should they change it to 50/day? 1000/day? Unrestricted?
Because someone will abuse it, everyone needs to be protected!
15/day. Do you really need to buy more than 15 a day?
Buying in bulk from a wholesaler like Costco where they're in 60 pill containers... Damn me for not wanting to make the trip once a week for a twice daily pill.