Have you tried the two-finger setup? Under system pref, you can configure the touchpad to sense a single-finger tap as a left click, and a double-finger tap as a right click. Also, dragging two fingers replicates a scroll wheel. 'Took me a little while to get used to, but it's second nature now - and I use mine for CAD development.
And not only would it weigh a pound and cost too much, it would melt. Design engineers always want to add more and more supporting ribs to the structure of the 'bathtubs' of new phones, and the analysts doing the heat transfer studies send them right back for redesign.
I don't think people realize the careful balance being maintained between structural integrity and heat transfer in these ever-more-powerful, ever-more-miniturized designs.
Pay attention to what? The statistics collected by economic experts and the company itself, or the random story of one poster? Not to say you couldn't have had the experience you've stated with respect to diverse origins, but anecdote is the singular of data.
Over seventy percent of all products sold at Wal-Mart are made in China. In 2004 it was estimated that $18 billion of WM's stock was of Chinese origin.
Check out the Frontline PBS special on the trade defecit. I don't think it's exaggerated by any means.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the court...the law forbid any legal action against them.
The law forbids action against the videogame makers. The protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights does not, though, extend to minors. We can deny the sale of media to children, just as we can deny them the sale of alcohol, or enforce curfews.
The only thing the courts need is reasonable evidence that violent videogames are harming kids, and that it is in the public interest to prevent them getting into kids' hands. No one's presented that well enough yet. It's just a matter of time before enough studies are done supporting that cause.
It wasn't terribly well written in the article, but I don't think they're trying to say that lawmakers are approaching the court concerning legal action against studios. They are feeling the courts out concerning the constitutionality of new laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors. Nothing out-of-bounds about that.
He was married and had children with the woman. Not only did he treat her and their children poorly, he left her for - after having cheated with - his first cousin. This inspires neither awe nor wonder for me.
You're correct that more and more people are moving towards serial monogamy rather than lifelong commitment, which is fine - but marriage is still an institution and commitment in which Herr Einstein entered willingly.
Those that participate in marriage grow disillusioned often, and at that point divorce is obvious. But to treat a partner like that, and then cheat (yes, cheat) - that is a lousy, base act. There is a distinct difference between 'breaking someone's heart' (ending a relationship when the other still cares for you) and violating their trust. One is one of many natural paths for a relationship, the other is simply a poor way to treat a fellow human being. I'm not saying good people don't do it, but it's wrong - that's part of the birds and bees that someone should have explained to YOU by now.
Look, I'd be the first person to admit and advocate the changing face of relationships in the Western world, to welcome the diversity we've gained. But a committed relationship is a committed relationship, and there were *plenty* of married men even a hundred years back that treated their wives with respect, deference, and faithfulness. Evidently Einstein wasn't capable of any of this, no matter how jovial his public persona.
Okay, I've pondered it a bit, and I give up - how on earth is the 'broken' US education system overvaluing exercise? As a product of the 'broken' educational system, I find it laughable to read it suggested that it stresses fitness at all, let alone overemphasizes it.
I'm not a sports fanatic by any means, but what's wrong with helping your child balance physical and intellectual disciplines? Your post seems to suggest that children should be allowed to dismiss any modicum of moderation; I think this is a recipe for disaster in adulthood.
Apologies in advance if I missed a joke. I'm but a poor dimwitted ex-student of US origin.
This is completely incompatible with the notion of God directing evolution.
I have no idea why this is incompatible. Catholics believe man was granted free will by god, but this does not mean that god does not know man's actions.
Similarly, just because some god designed the system, and knows its transient and final states, does not mean that the system won't behave according to some vigorous set of rules (i.e., biology).
If you define natural selection by its most-(over)used one-liner, 'survival of the fittest', who is it to say that god didn't predetermine Man (and insect, and rabbit, etc) to be the fittest? If you could go back in time and introduce some different organism that evolution selects features from, would you be violating natural selection? Science describes the process; it does not constrain its starting point.
Although I don't agree with the mods that your post is flaimbait, I would like to discuss a couple of points.
I've never seen reference to 'catholic' (lower c) as a general term for Christians anywhere. The word 'catholic' comes from the latin 'catholicus', meaning 'universal', as in 'the universal church'. Catholic with a lowercase 'c' would be used in the sense of describing something universal, not necessarily religiously related in any sense.
I would also take exception with your remark about Catholic extremism. I would say there are a minority of Catholics that follow all church dogma, such as the anti-birth control stance, but nowhere in Catholic dogma or other writings does the church teach creationism. I think I can confidently say that any conforming Catholic school, run by Marianists or Jesuits post Vatican II, have taught the theory of evolution as fact. In general, I would say Catholicism is actively anti-fundamentalist, in that they despise the idea of taking biblical text as fact without context. Many of its dogmas/core beliefs are not - although equally intolerant, such as the anti-gay view - based on literal biblical text alone, but built on centuries of Catholic philosophical writing in addition to scripture.
Although not Catholic myself (just an ex-Cath school student, much better academics than public where I grew up), I have a certain respect for the organization in that they are sticking to their beliefs. Their numbers are dwindling, especially in the Western world, so it would be very easy to change doctrine as a marketing move. But they've stuck to their guns, keeping their beliefs despite their low popularity.
I would say the 'extermists' that you talk about are a small sliver, such as the Mel Gibson 'sect', that don't even recognize the Pope.
I do totally agree with you about your last statement - too many people trying legislate the minutae of their religion. Pretty sad. Catholc teaching would say that the death-penalty is as equally heinous as abortion, so I have no idea how American bishops justify these silly denials.
You make a valid point. I work in the software industry, and make money on the assumption that people will pay, not copy, my software. I'm in no way advocating or justifying so-called 'piracy'. I'm just saying the semantics involved are important - 'steal' carries a connotation that I don't think is justified for people that copy IP.
Although when I say 'most that illegally copy software', I'm talking about the relative poor of countries like China. A lot of these people aren't giving their money to anything but for food and other basic needs. (this observation is from experience - lived there for a brief time. although their standard of living on average is somewhat better than in India, there are still vast, vast numbers of low-income people that can't afford to pay for CDs or M$ OSs)
The presumption of the parent post is that if I borrow a friend's game and copy it to a computer, or d/l it from BT, or whatever, I've not stolen. 'Stealing' is depriving someone/some entity of its rightful property.
If I download Civ4 using BT, have I deprived Firaxis Games of its property? No, they still have source and binaries and all of their distribution CDs.
What we're talking about is copyright violation. The parent notes that he's being pedantic, but with good reason. There is a difference - if I steal an orange from a vendor, he has one less orange no matter the alternative. If I download a game, the vendor still has the game. In fact, if it's a game I never would've bought in the first place, I've not deprived them of any revenue. That's why all of the figures about far-east 'piracy' costing the software industry billions is just rubbish. Most that illegally copy software never would've bought it in the first place.
The word 'steal' w.r.t. digitally copying software, music, and other IP is just misused - a very careful contrivance on the part of these industries to demonize those that do it.
No offense, but this is a foolish statement. Most of the large application software on the planet is still in C/C++, including engineering and game software. I work in a different simulation field than the parent was probably talking about - FEA simulation software, in the context of a large MCAD package - and our 15+ million line codebase is in C, C++, and F90. Even if we wanted to switch to another language, would you like to estimate the migration cost?
For some of the math code, we can't find another language that beats F90, with a smattering of processor-dependent assembler for each of several platforms. This is a team with hundreds of very, very smart people. Studies have been done, alternatives rejected.
Yes, it's painful at times, but when app speed counts, C/C++ still often rules, and when math performance counts, believe it for not, Fortran rules. Not everything's an 'enterprise ready web solution' -- the rest of the world who still write turnkey applications have to use what will work best of the end user. Sometimes that's a friendlier OO language, many times it's not.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I'm accepting neither that the book is complete nor am I accepting that it's accurate. I'm accepting the *possibility* that its facts ring true, or false.
I do think the most disturbing statement in the review was that pr0n significantly affects all who watch it, but that statement was telegraphed by the reviewer with no context or annotation. 'Might be a perfectly viable study, for all I know.
What I do know is that many slashdotters will combat an idea as stupid, beating it to the ground, just because it challenges the status quo - and I saw no one with facts that've had that strong a reaction. Anecdote is the singular of data.
And the *last* way to refute a hypothesis, no matter how ridiculous, is with vitriol. We simply lower ourselves to the realm of Rush and Michael Moore. There is still room for rational discourse in this country, and even on this site - let's engage in it.
Hrm. This thread gets more and more interesting. I had a much more complaintive post gathered, I'm glad I waited after accidentally killing my browser.
I suspect we're politically similar - old-school Republican, none of this pro-value, neo-con rubbish.
But why the vitriol? I suspect Ms. Paul tends more towards feminism than 'new age' conservatism, and her work probably stems from the (in my opinion) interesting concern that we're objectifying not just women, but sex in general. (not saying 'outlaw pr0n' or 'it's absolutely a problem', but just that it's worth studying) If the data says it's causing problems - child porn going from a non-existent problem to an FBI priority is pretty telling - how do we argue with this? I don't think mainstream adult entertainment is causing problems, but the Internet has certainly provided a mechanism for the wackos to correspond.
Note that I'm certainly not calling for the return of puritanical values and guilt-with-every-pleasure feelings that so many fundamentalists lust for, but I also do not subscribe to the 'it feels good, it must be okay' camp. Why not research?
Absolutely true that this is all corollary data, not definitively causal - I'm not defending or damning her study, just wondering why you're so vehement.
I can see the marketing tagline now...
on
Video Tombstones
·
· Score: 1
"Vidstone: Trivializing Life, One Chump At A Time"
The statistic is just a WAG (it would actually come out to ~.7 rentals/month, btw). I was just illustrating that certainly the Netflix - and Amazon for that matter - executives have a business plan that builds in this kind of estimate.
And, as embarrassed as I am to admit it, I subscribe to Netflix and sometimes go a month or two w/o renting anything new (hey, nice weather in Ohio is hard to come by, you have to enjoy it while it's here).
I'm a little confused that people are challenging this model as if it's unproven; I don't know why WalMart didn't succeed, maybe they chased the wrong demographic for this sort of thing, but NetFlix has already proven it works:
It's a different package than they typically deliver right now; a book or CD comes in a cardboard box, often with packing bubbles and such.
If they follow the Netflix model, the DVD will be shipped in an envelope such that the whole package weighs less than an ounce - disc only, no case. It's their product, so they can risk them getting broken at virtually no cost (distributors probably replace them for free). First-class, non-bulk postage using USPS for a square envelope 1oz is around 50c. You can imagine that they get a pretty good bulk discount on shipping, and assuredly won't use USPS.
Also, these subscription models depend on the fact that a large number of people won't use it very often. If even a small percentage of the subscribership pays the $10/month and average one rental every 1.5 months, the service's profit margin goes through the roof.
Wow, so much for rational discourse. Too much to expect here, I guess. I suppose 'thank you, come again' is some pithy slam-dunk supposition on your part. Maybe if you were a little less self-important in your little pseudo-intellectual meanderings, you might learn something.
I didn't miss the point, you missed mine. The continent of Asia is no more a fiscal hit to the MPAA than the African AIDS drug market is for the pharms. Why? You like the yelling so I suppose I will too:
THE PEOPLE THERE CAN'T AFFORD THE PRICES, THEY WOULDN'T BE BUYING THE MEDIA EVEN IF THE LAWS WERE ENFORCED
Yes, I mean the entire CONTINENT of Asia. Japan has stringent anti-piracy enforcement - any guess why? Would you care to compare per-capita income to China or Russia? Or the relative values of their currencies?
This is intellectual property being violated, not product being stolen. They're only going to enforce in places where money is being lost, not where no money is to be made at all.
And yes, the copyright-infringers selling copied media *are* the ones causing the stupid laws. The MPAA/RIAA couldn't give two shites if you copy one for your car, but before it's over, you won't be able to anyway b/c of these morons.
No, no - really, thank YOU, come again. Next time try to sound a little less like the Simpsons comic book store guy.
Sooo... you're surprised that the law is going after the people that cause the most fiscal harm? How is that 'Bull Shit'?
In related news, FBI pursues organized crime families laundering billions of dollars a year, doesn't spend as much resource on nickel-and-dime street grifters.
I'd say you've proven the parent's post - it's the miserable people that can *afford* to pay $10 to see a movie, and violate international copyright law instead, that are causing stupid laws to be made that limit my fair-use rights.
I don't like the **AA, I don't like the lawmakers, and I really don't like the people who can very well afford to buy the media but hide behind false principles so they can save a few bucks.
Give me a break, smart-ass. It's not splitting semantic hairs, it's an attempt to change people's (often wrong) connotative feelings about government. If you're implying in your other post that people today casually calling government 'evil' equates to Thomas Paine's excellent Common Sense, you're bastardizing his work in the worst way.
Finish the quote - Paine writes that government at its worst can make people to suffer as much as if there was no government at all. So it is made worse by the fact that *we* (the people!) furnish the means of our suffering.
In your fumbling attempts to understand history, you might pick up on the fact that Paine wrote this text on the eve of the Revolution; it was propoganda to propel the masses against an oppressive British government, with the hope of building something better.
"Necessary evil" in this context carries a clear meaning - in context - as written by one our greatest political minds. Just calling the government 'evil' is the providence of those who wear tin-foil-hats and other such fools. To which party do you subscribe?
'Evil' seems like a silly label to apply to an abstract construct such as the government anyway. 'Government' can't be evil unless it is one person who is evil. The government is millions of citizens, some of whom I know very well -- and they certainly aren't evil.
Government can empower evil people to do wrong, which is why the Founders restricted the government's might.
Never been to UD? Huge party school; where else could you get drunk and throw up on the Wright brothers graves? I think Playboy voted them #1 party school some time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried the two-finger setup? Under system pref, you can configure the touchpad to sense a single-finger tap as a left click, and a double-finger tap as a right click. Also, dragging two fingers replicates a scroll wheel. 'Took me a little while to get used to, but it's second nature now - and I use mine for CAD development.
I wish I had mod points. 'Tis true.
And not only would it weigh a pound and cost too much, it would melt. Design engineers always want to add more and more supporting ribs to the structure of the 'bathtubs' of new phones, and the analysts doing the heat transfer studies send them right back for redesign.
I don't think people realize the careful balance being maintained between structural integrity and heat transfer in these ever-more-powerful, ever-more-miniturized designs.
Average story posts drop from hundreds to dozens.
Over seventy percent of all products sold at Wal-Mart are made in China. In 2004 it was estimated that $18 billion of WM's stock was of Chinese origin.
Check out the Frontline PBS special on the trade defecit. I don't think it's exaggerated by any means.
Great discussion... great points...
But what kind of fucked up HDD does that laptop have?!??
That has absolutely nothing to do with the court...the law forbid any legal action against them.
The law forbids action against the videogame makers. The protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights does not, though, extend to minors. We can deny the sale of media to children, just as we can deny them the sale of alcohol, or enforce curfews.
The only thing the courts need is reasonable evidence that violent videogames are harming kids, and that it is in the public interest to prevent them getting into kids' hands. No one's presented that well enough yet. It's just a matter of time before enough studies are done supporting that cause.
It wasn't terribly well written in the article, but I don't think they're trying to say that lawmakers are approaching the court concerning legal action against studios. They are feeling the courts out concerning the constitutionality of new laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors. Nothing out-of-bounds about that.
He was married and had children with the woman. Not only did he treat her and their children poorly, he left her for - after having cheated with - his first cousin. This inspires neither awe nor wonder for me.
You're correct that more and more people are moving towards serial monogamy rather than lifelong commitment, which is fine - but marriage is still an institution and commitment in which Herr Einstein entered willingly.
Those that participate in marriage grow disillusioned often, and at that point divorce is obvious. But to treat a partner like that, and then cheat (yes, cheat) - that is a lousy, base act. There is a distinct difference between 'breaking someone's heart' (ending a relationship when the other still cares for you) and violating their trust. One is one of many natural paths for a relationship, the other is simply a poor way to treat a fellow human being. I'm not saying good people don't do it, but it's wrong - that's part of the birds and bees that someone should have explained to YOU by now.
Look, I'd be the first person to admit and advocate the changing face of relationships in the Western world, to welcome the diversity we've gained. But a committed relationship is a committed relationship, and there were *plenty* of married men even a hundred years back that treated their wives with respect, deference, and faithfulness. Evidently Einstein wasn't capable of any of this, no matter how jovial his public persona.
I'm not a sports fanatic by any means, but what's wrong with helping your child balance physical and intellectual disciplines? Your post seems to suggest that children should be allowed to dismiss any modicum of moderation; I think this is a recipe for disaster in adulthood.
Apologies in advance if I missed a joke. I'm but a poor dimwitted ex-student of US origin.
I have no idea why this is incompatible. Catholics believe man was granted free will by god, but this does not mean that god does not know man's actions.
Similarly, just because some god designed the system, and knows its transient and final states, does not mean that the system won't behave according to some vigorous set of rules (i.e., biology).
If you define natural selection by its most-(over)used one-liner, 'survival of the fittest', who is it to say that god didn't predetermine Man (and insect, and rabbit, etc) to be the fittest? If you could go back in time and introduce some different organism that evolution selects features from, would you be violating natural selection? Science describes the process; it does not constrain its starting point.
I've never seen reference to 'catholic' (lower c) as a general term for Christians anywhere. The word 'catholic' comes from the latin 'catholicus', meaning 'universal', as in 'the universal church'. Catholic with a lowercase 'c' would be used in the sense of describing something universal, not necessarily religiously related in any sense.
I would also take exception with your remark about Catholic extremism. I would say there are a minority of Catholics that follow all church dogma, such as the anti-birth control stance, but nowhere in Catholic dogma or other writings does the church teach creationism. I think I can confidently say that any conforming Catholic school, run by Marianists or Jesuits post Vatican II, have taught the theory of evolution as fact. In general, I would say Catholicism is actively anti-fundamentalist, in that they despise the idea of taking biblical text as fact without context. Many of its dogmas/core beliefs are not - although equally intolerant, such as the anti-gay view - based on literal biblical text alone, but built on centuries of Catholic philosophical writing in addition to scripture.
Although not Catholic myself (just an ex-Cath school student, much better academics than public where I grew up), I have a certain respect for the organization in that they are sticking to their beliefs. Their numbers are dwindling, especially in the Western world, so it would be very easy to change doctrine as a marketing move. But they've stuck to their guns, keeping their beliefs despite their low popularity.
I would say the 'extermists' that you talk about are a small sliver, such as the Mel Gibson 'sect', that don't even recognize the Pope.
I do totally agree with you about your last statement - too many people trying legislate the minutae of their religion. Pretty sad. Catholc teaching would say that the death-penalty is as equally heinous as abortion, so I have no idea how American bishops justify these silly denials.
Although when I say 'most that illegally copy software', I'm talking about the relative poor of countries like China. A lot of these people aren't giving their money to anything but for food and other basic needs. (this observation is from experience - lived there for a brief time. although their standard of living on average is somewhat better than in India, there are still vast, vast numbers of low-income people that can't afford to pay for CDs or M$ OSs)
If I download Civ4 using BT, have I deprived Firaxis Games of its property? No, they still have source and binaries and all of their distribution CDs.
What we're talking about is copyright violation. The parent notes that he's being pedantic, but with good reason. There is a difference - if I steal an orange from a vendor, he has one less orange no matter the alternative. If I download a game, the vendor still has the game. In fact, if it's a game I never would've bought in the first place, I've not deprived them of any revenue. That's why all of the figures about far-east 'piracy' costing the software industry billions is just rubbish. Most that illegally copy software never would've bought it in the first place.
The word 'steal' w.r.t. digitally copying software, music, and other IP is just misused - a very careful contrivance on the part of these industries to demonize those that do it.
For some of the math code, we can't find another language that beats F90, with a smattering of processor-dependent assembler for each of several platforms. This is a team with hundreds of very, very smart people. Studies have been done, alternatives rejected.
Yes, it's painful at times, but when app speed counts, C/C++ still often rules, and when math performance counts, believe it for not, Fortran rules. Not everything's an 'enterprise ready web solution' -- the rest of the world who still write turnkey applications have to use what will work best of the end user. Sometimes that's a friendlier OO language, many times it's not.
I do think the most disturbing statement in the review was that pr0n significantly affects all who watch it, but that statement was telegraphed by the reviewer with no context or annotation. 'Might be a perfectly viable study, for all I know.
What I do know is that many slashdotters will combat an idea as stupid, beating it to the ground, just because it challenges the status quo - and I saw no one with facts that've had that strong a reaction. Anecdote is the singular of data.
And the *last* way to refute a hypothesis, no matter how ridiculous, is with vitriol. We simply lower ourselves to the realm of Rush and Michael Moore. There is still room for rational discourse in this country, and even on this site - let's engage in it.
I suspect we're politically similar - old-school Republican, none of this pro-value, neo-con rubbish.
But why the vitriol? I suspect Ms. Paul tends more towards feminism than 'new age' conservatism, and her work probably stems from the (in my opinion) interesting concern that we're objectifying not just women, but sex in general. (not saying 'outlaw pr0n' or 'it's absolutely a problem', but just that it's worth studying) If the data says it's causing problems - child porn going from a non-existent problem to an FBI priority is pretty telling - how do we argue with this? I don't think mainstream adult entertainment is causing problems, but the Internet has certainly provided a mechanism for the wackos to correspond.
Note that I'm certainly not calling for the return of puritanical values and guilt-with-every-pleasure feelings that so many fundamentalists lust for, but I also do not subscribe to the 'it feels good, it must be okay' camp. Why not research?
Absolutely true that this is all corollary data, not definitively causal - I'm not defending or damning her study, just wondering why you're so vehement.
"Vidstone: Trivializing Life, One Chump At A Time"
The statistic is just a WAG (it would actually come out to ~.7 rentals/month, btw). I was just illustrating that certainly the Netflix - and Amazon for that matter - executives have a business plan that builds in this kind of estimate.
And, as embarrassed as I am to admit it, I subscribe to Netflix and sometimes go a month or two w/o renting anything new (hey, nice weather in Ohio is hard to come by, you have to enjoy it while it's here).
Netflix 2nd Quarter
I'd say on-track for a $650mil year is pretty successful.
It's a different package than they typically deliver right now; a book or CD comes in a cardboard box, often with packing bubbles and such.
If they follow the Netflix model, the DVD will be shipped in an envelope such that the whole package weighs less than an ounce - disc only, no case. It's their product, so they can risk them getting broken at virtually no cost (distributors probably replace them for free). First-class, non-bulk postage using USPS for a square envelope 1oz is around 50c. You can imagine that they get a pretty good bulk discount on shipping, and assuredly won't use USPS.
Also, these subscription models depend on the fact that a large number of people won't use it very often. If even a small percentage of the subscribership pays the $10/month and average one rental every 1.5 months, the service's profit margin goes through the roof.
I didn't miss the point, you missed mine. The continent of Asia is no more a fiscal hit to the MPAA than the African AIDS drug market is for the pharms. Why? You like the yelling so I suppose I will too:
THE PEOPLE THERE CAN'T AFFORD THE PRICES, THEY WOULDN'T BE BUYING THE MEDIA EVEN IF THE LAWS WERE ENFORCED
Yes, I mean the entire CONTINENT of Asia. Japan has stringent anti-piracy enforcement - any guess why? Would you care to compare per-capita income to China or Russia? Or the relative values of their currencies?
This is intellectual property being violated, not product being stolen. They're only going to enforce in places where money is being lost, not where no money is to be made at all.
And yes, the copyright-infringers selling copied media *are* the ones causing the stupid laws. The MPAA/RIAA couldn't give two shites if you copy one for your car, but before it's over, you won't be able to anyway b/c of these morons.
No, no - really, thank YOU, come again. Next time try to sound a little less like the Simpsons comic book store guy.
In related news, FBI pursues organized crime families laundering billions of dollars a year, doesn't spend as much resource on nickel-and-dime street grifters.
I'd say you've proven the parent's post - it's the miserable people that can *afford* to pay $10 to see a movie, and violate international copyright law instead, that are causing stupid laws to be made that limit my fair-use rights.
I don't like the **AA, I don't like the lawmakers, and I really don't like the people who can very well afford to buy the media but hide behind false principles so they can save a few bucks.
If you're leaving the pavement, send a real rover.
Finish the quote - Paine writes that government at its worst can make people to suffer as much as if there was no government at all. So it is made worse by the fact that *we* (the people!) furnish the means of our suffering.
In your fumbling attempts to understand history, you might pick up on the fact that Paine wrote this text on the eve of the Revolution; it was propoganda to propel the masses against an oppressive British government, with the hope of building something better.
"Necessary evil" in this context carries a clear meaning - in context - as written by one our greatest political minds. Just calling the government 'evil' is the providence of those who wear tin-foil-hats and other such fools. To which party do you subscribe?
Government can empower evil people to do wrong, which is why the Founders restricted the government's might.
Never been to UD? Huge party school; where else could you get drunk and throw up on the Wright brothers graves? I think Playboy voted them #1 party school some time ago.