quoth (or misquoth) - millions for defense but not one cent for tribute. MPAA and friends have managed to make themselves exceedingly unpopular with a great many people while not making any proven impact on their problem (whether real or just in their heads).
Less common non voting impropriety issue - why do we still use plurality voting? We have computers now, there's no reason not to use a Condorcet method or some other form of voting system that collects more data from a voter than just their first choice of candidite. Isn't it also significant who their 2nd thru Nth choices are? In the most recent presidential election we had alot of people fanatically in favor of Bush and almost as many (some would say more) that wanted him the hell out. Under a different voting system, Nader could quite well be the president elect right now - not that I'm entirely sure that would be a Good Thing. But it would certainly keep the PTB on their toes.
The machine I voted on used scanned paper ballots, so it would presumably only be physically able to hold so many before they'd have to empty it or whatever. However I don't see any legitimate reason either to make a machine have a maximum of only 3,000 when something with the power of a four function calculator would damn near be enough to count many orders of magnitude higher. And why the hell does the thing have a selectable maximum anyway? This implies that someone deliberately added this as a feature.
I'm interested to see where your data came from, because everything I've ever heard on the topic was more along the lines of creativity and artistic expression being a distant second to any change that might increase profits. Mass media (feature films especially) are about exploiting art for profit. Art is art, capitalism is capitalism.
Look again..."to form a more perfect Union" is the very first thing spoken of in the Constitution. Also, the Civil War (or the War of Secession depending on viewpoint) rather firmly established that acting to disolve that union is not A Good Thing. Furthermore if you want to get into the Founding Fathers bit, I challenge you to find a single one that did not consider himself an Englishman, and would not have gladly tried to pursue any grievances through Parlament - if they had been given a representative there. Furthermore the realities of our history are far from the idealized versions promoted in our schools. I can't think of a way to talk about the kind of scenario you're thinking about without starting out with either "in an ideal world..." or "it'd be nice if..." or something similar. I compeletely agree with your ideals, but the world does not and probably can not work that way with any degree of long-term stability.
"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."
Sounds rather suspiciously like a civil defense meausure to me, while not saying anything I can see about encouraging armed revolt. Constitutions are designed to help keep governments (and the nations they represent) INTACT, not to provide for their early demise at the hands of nuke-toting disgruntled minorities.
Please supply links to these other documents by the signatories of the US Constitution you mentioned that would contradict this, and remember that one man does not a conspiracy make.
Slashdot Mirror
quoth (or misquoth) - millions for defense but not one cent for tribute. MPAA and friends have managed to make themselves exceedingly unpopular with a great many people while not making any proven impact on their problem (whether real or just in their heads).
Now why can't they have that available in the states...
Gmail, and configure mail forwarding on the domain.
http://www.hyperos2002.com/07042003/products.htm
HyperOs HyperDrive III, 16GB capacity, ATA100, rather pricey.
http://www.cenatek.com/
Cenatek Rocket Drive, various product versions, PCI instead.
Printers - relatively modern contraption requiring significant amounts of technology to fabricate.
Ink - been around for thousands of years.
So why the hell is it the ink that costs so damn much, and that they say they're not making profit on?
Less common non voting impropriety issue - why do we still use plurality voting? We have computers now, there's no reason not to use a Condorcet method or some other form of voting system that collects more data from a voter than just their first choice of candidite. Isn't it also significant who their 2nd thru Nth choices are? In the most recent presidential election we had alot of people fanatically in favor of Bush and almost as many (some would say more) that wanted him the hell out. Under a different voting system, Nader could quite well be the president elect right now - not that I'm entirely sure that would be a Good Thing. But it would certainly keep the PTB on their toes.
The machine I voted on used scanned paper ballots, so it would presumably only be physically able to hold so many before they'd have to empty it or whatever. However I don't see any legitimate reason either to make a machine have a maximum of only 3,000 when something with the power of a four function calculator would damn near be enough to count many orders of magnitude higher. And why the hell does the thing have a selectable maximum anyway? This implies that someone deliberately added this as a feature.
I'm interested to see where your data came from, because everything I've ever heard on the topic was more along the lines of creativity and artistic expression being a distant second to any change that might increase profits. Mass media (feature films especially) are about exploiting art for profit. Art is art, capitalism is capitalism.
You knew the answer to the question before you asked it, and I presume that most people on slashdot did also. So what's the point of this article?
Look again..."to form a more perfect Union" is the very first thing spoken of in the Constitution. Also, the Civil War (or the War of Secession depending on viewpoint) rather firmly established that acting to disolve that union is not A Good Thing. Furthermore if you want to get into the Founding Fathers bit, I challenge you to find a single one that did not consider himself an Englishman, and would not have gladly tried to pursue any grievances through Parlament - if they had been given a representative there. Furthermore the realities of our history are far from the idealized versions promoted in our schools. I can't think of a way to talk about the kind of scenario you're thinking about without starting out with either "in an ideal world..." or "it'd be nice if..." or something similar. I compeletely agree with your ideals, but the world does not and probably can not work that way with any degree of long-term stability.
And recompiled numerous times since then, under a number of different languages. Pity noone bothered to document the damn thing.
The format Toshiba supports is actually called AOD (Advanced Optical Disk) and HD-DVD can refer equally to AOD or Blu-Ray.
"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."
Sounds rather suspiciously like a civil defense meausure to me, while not saying anything I can see about encouraging armed revolt. Constitutions are designed to help keep governments (and the nations they represent) INTACT, not to provide for their early demise at the hands of nuke-toting disgruntled minorities.
Please supply links to these other documents by the signatories of the US Constitution you mentioned that would contradict this, and remember that one man does not a conspiracy make.