US$249 for 4GB is a lot of money when you can get 15GB for US$50 more. US$249 for 4 GB is a fantastic deal when the same coin gets you a mere 512MB of flash-based music storage. The latter is the comparison Apple wants buyers to make when considering the iPod Mini. Time will tell if its a compelling one.
If they've got a decent margin on it, think how much more they could trounce the flash-based competition if they sold at that $199 or $149 price point. Personally, I don't know where anyone has that much disposable income lying around. I'd love to have our entire music collection accessible in a handy portable device, but can in no way justify the $259/$299 price tag.
If only Irix was as easy to acquire as Solaris is nowadays. I've got an SGI sitting at home (that I stub my toe on, like the author did his Ultra 5) that I'd love to have another Unix flavor on for the experience. I'm not going to spend eBay prices on what is essentially a toy, so unfortunately I'm out of luck. Unless SGI has plans I don't know about.
The strongest reason for having a limited government in the first place is that people have a right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Why do people have that right? Where does it come from? If it's simply a good idea someone thought up once, what's to stop someone else from having the idea that you don't have that "right"? The concept that there is a Higher Authority that believes in justice gives us an absolute standard from which to derive our rights. Without this, might makes right, for what reason would anyone have for not gaining as much to himself as he could? No one is going to take you to account for your actions, because no one in this world has enough power to stop you, and there is nothing after this world. The existence of God who has laws for us to follow radically alters the scenario.
Well, I'm an atheist and I don't abuse what power I've been entrusted with. You appear to be saying you would if you weren't afraid of hell. I guess that's just a moral difference between us.
First, I'm not saying that I would. But knowing what I do of human nature, I know there are many, many people that would. People are not perfect: we lie, cheat, steal, are impatient, rude, callous, and uncaring. We do it unintentionally, without even thinking. Children aren't taught to do these things, they happen naturally. It seems to be part of who we are. In Christianity, we call this the "sinful nature" we are born with. Even if you don't agree with the "spiritual-ese" language, you can agree that no one is perfect. Simply calling it "sin" is shorthand, if you will.
Second, I didn't say I was afraid of hell. If you define hell as separation from God, then I'd agree it's something I don't desire. I love God, and desire to be with Him. But I would disagree with your negative phrasing. People who say "Christians are just afraid of hell" have a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. It's not just a place of eternal fire and torment we'd rather not go to! It's the absence of a God we have a relationship with. Since Christians believe humans are spiritual beings designed to be in communion with God, being apart from that very thing for all of eternity would indeed be torment.
The behavior of christian political leaders in the past and present as well as that of televangelists and certain catholic priests conclusively proves that religion is not a protection against abuse of power.
I didn't say it was protection. It's cliche but true: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. At least I know the moral goals a Christian aspires to. With an atheist, I don't know what the goals are, or even if there are any at all.
History disproves this. You won't see atheists launching crusades and burning witches. Even recently you have christian morons like George Bush Sr. saying that atheists "shouldn't be considered citizens". No, christians are no more or less trustworthy than anyone else.
False. History does prove it. You can think of some examples of religious zealotry (Christian and non-) run amuck, but there are also many examples of atheist and anti-religious zealotry. In fact, there have been more people killed by secular (atheistic) governments (Nazis killed millions of Jews, Stalin killed millions of dissenters, Christians murdered in China, Pol Pot and others in SE Asia) in the 20th century alone than by Christians in all twenty centuries together. This was addressed in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?
There was a time when Europe was ruled by christianity. We call this period the Dark Ages.
I would make a distinction between Christianity and Christendom. Sitting in a church pew does not make one Christian
I agree with the summaries of the evolution of Trek from TOS->TNG->DS9->V->E. Since the Great Bird of the Galaxy died, Trek has become cheesey and formulaic. TOS might have been campy in retrospect, but we must remember the time it was created in. Those are the characters we know and love. TOS had what it took; it was fans of TOS that got the space shuttle named, that got Trek revived on the big screen, and then again on the small screen. For 20 years, TOS was all there was, and the dream stayed alive. Trek would be better off if fans got what they really want, not what the producers think they want.
And what do we want? Our original characters, with original stories, handled with modern ideas of TV production. We want Excelsior. We want Sulu, Uhura, and Rand together with an ensemble cast, going back to the Trek roots we remember from TOS and TNG. Very human characters, with faults and idiosyncrasies, forging ahead into the unknown, representing the human ideal in less than ideal situations, and learning about themselves along the way. All the elements of Roddenberry's Trek, without the 60's-style studio pressure for a single strong lead. That's what we want. Not gratuitous nudity and action. Not continuity and plot errors big enough to fly a starship through. Not gee-whiz special effects.
And what precisely is wrong with people deciding the course of their own lives? Just because you may not agree that the course they've taken is wise is no justification for you (the minority, evidently) to dictate to them, especially in matters of how their money is spent. You're still free to spend as much of your own money on your children's education as you wish. Freedom: it's a good thing.
It is in my best interest to look out for my fellow man because it is my individual best interest, not because I am part of a collective called society. It is immoral to force me to do something "for the greater good". I don't have the right to demand money from my neighbor to pay for my kids' education, and government cannot have a right that the people cannot give it. There are very few things that are truly for the "general welfare" rather than the "specific welfare" of groups or individuals, and I think they're pretty well enumerated in A1S8.
Additionally, if your abrogate your responsibility to provide your children's education, your right to educate them as you choose is also diminished. If Susie Jones in Vermont is compelled to furnish some portion of your little Johnny's schooling, shouldn't she feel she ought to have a say in how her money is spent? Do you want her putting her two cents in? I wouldn't. Educating your kids is your business alone, so take responsibility for it. If you want to pool together with others, great, but it should be voluntary. If I want to teach my kids at home, how dare you force me to pay some sort of tax to a school I'm not using.
Just because someone is wealthy does not make them any less deserving of every cent they own or any more obligated to help you out.
I've been a part of the Constititution Party for over three years, and I have yet to meet anyone who wants a theocracy. They would all recognize that for the tyranny it is. Just because someone wants to run government by principles driven home by religious belief does not make them promoters of theocracy. The belief that we are answerable to something higher than human government is one of the strongest reasons for having a limited government in the first place. What check does a non-religious person have from abusing power he is entrusted with?
Believe me, atheists are much safer in a nation run by Christians than Christians in a nation run by atheists. Christians have a higher calling to do good by everyone; with an atheist you have no such guarantee. Even though Christians are fallible, I'd rather take my chances with them than the likes of Stalin or Mao.
And might I say it is refreshing to see someone understands that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and that liberty is not license.
I agree that property taxes for education are distasteful. It should be tuition-based, IMO. If you choose not to have kids, you shouldn't have to pay for others' kids' education. If you do have kids, it's your responsibility to pay for their education. This may sound harsh, because some areas are more affluent and can afford better education, as you mention. But this is a land of liberty...you are free to move and try to make a better life for yourself elsewhere, but you are not guaranteed a better life just because you live here in America. Federal "leveling out" of economic disparity is precisely the idea that gave us the entitlement programs you mentioned. Schools can offer their own scholarship programs to help underprivileged but gifted students...they've been doing it at the university level for a long time. Schools can network to spread this benefit over larger geographic areas. The same benefit can be realized through a voluntary private bottom-up plan just as well as a mandated government top-down plan.
Too bad there aren't any Republicans that favor abolishing the Dept of Ed anymore. It's unconstitutional, and should go. But that's why I don't vote Republican anymore, either.
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
James Madison said:
With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
I think it's pretty clear that Article 1 Section 8 specifies those powers that promote the general welfare.
We do have something for it to do. Several things in fact. Education is not one of them.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
If it's not listed here explicitly, the federal government has no business doing it. Remember, the Founders had just fought a war against a tyrant who controlled too much of their lives. This document, the Constitution, strictly limited government (not the people) as to what powers it had. The powers listed here are only those absolutely necessary to have at the national level to make the States appear, in fact, a single nation. A silly nation it would be that had only part of it going to war, or one that used different money in different places, or had different customs and procedures when persons and goods crossed various borders. But education is not a "one-size-fits-all" situation. And as if that wasn't clear enough...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Raising children, including education, is the right of parents. If anything requires a bottom-up solution rather than a top-down one, it's education.
Why is it some Nebraskan's job to help pay for a school district in Vermont?
Not every "problem" in the world needs a top-down "solution". Schools districts are local entities, and should be controlled and financed locally.
Show me in the Constitution where the federal gubmint has any authority over education.
Maybe American public schools are broke, but private schools are doing fine, and most of the time on far less money per student than the public schools get. As with most other areas, privately-funded organizations have an incentive to spend money wisely and efficiently.
Yeah, with the kind of reasoning these schools are using, any kid with a brown belt or better ought to be suspended, maybe expelled in the case of your bud James. He's just too dangerous! "Remember Johnny, people don't kill people, guns/knives/nunchuks/karate kill people."
That's right. If the illusion of security is good enough for the Department of Homeland Security, it ought to be good enough for Microsoft! Who needs real security?
Because they pick boring (flat) spots to land in an attempt to be successful. Wouldn't do much good to land if it was in a crevasse, or on top of a boulder, or on an incline steep enough to topple down.
Yeah, that's what I say too. Why can't Apple come out with a 5 GB player for ~$27.50/GB? That's a performance/price point that I can afford. Instead of dropping prices to improve that ratio they increase the performance, but that still means I can't buy one.
I dunno, a $100 iPod would be OK. Far more portable than the 33-100 CDs worth of music it represents, far more portable than the CD player I could install in only one of our vehicles for that price, and definitely much cooler.
Firstly, it's the idea of 'justice'. We are supposed to have a system of 'justice'. If you can't put right the wrong after the event, then no amount of punishment can give 'justice'.
True. But we also have freedom. We don't unnecessarily restrict everybody from doing anything at all just so that nobody will ever be hurt. By your definition, murderers and rapists can never be "brought to justice"...but that doesn't mean we let them go scot-free.
You are concerned about justice, which is good. But where is the justice in punishing somebody for something that didn't happen? Our system stands by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" but pre-emptively limiting freedoms on the assumption (or statistical likelihood) that something will happen is not justice either.
Secondly, you fall in to the same problem of many other drivers - "if I'm the only car in sight for miles" - do you really know what is around the next bend, over the next hill, approaching the next junction?
I live in the Midwest. What hills? What bends?:) Seriously though, I have equal disdain for negligent drivers that think "dodging the other cars" is their only concern. Driving is not a video game. If only more drivers would understand that dashing around in a car is akin to wearing a loaded pistol on your hip. If you're not careful, it can hurt someone. But because it might happen is not a good reason to restrict guns or take them away, not is it a good reason to restrict cars.
Obviously because you want to stop accidents from occurring, rather than just punish people after the event.
Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.
No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!
Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.
Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure hope so. He says...
If they've got a decent margin on it, think how much more they could trounce the flash-based competition if they sold at that $199 or $149 price point. Personally, I don't know where anyone has that much disposable income lying around. I'd love to have our entire music collection accessible in a handy portable device, but can in no way justify the $259/$299 price tag.
If only Irix was as easy to acquire as Solaris is nowadays. I've got an SGI sitting at home (that I stub my toe on, like the author did his Ultra 5) that I'd love to have another Unix flavor on for the experience. I'm not going to spend eBay prices on what is essentially a toy, so unfortunately I'm out of luck. Unless SGI has plans I don't know about.
Why do people have that right? Where does it come from? If it's simply a good idea someone thought up once, what's to stop someone else from having the idea that you don't have that "right"? The concept that there is a Higher Authority that believes in justice gives us an absolute standard from which to derive our rights. Without this, might makes right, for what reason would anyone have for not gaining as much to himself as he could? No one is going to take you to account for your actions, because no one in this world has enough power to stop you, and there is nothing after this world. The existence of God who has laws for us to follow radically alters the scenario.
First, I'm not saying that I would. But knowing what I do of human nature, I know there are many, many people that would. People are not perfect: we lie, cheat, steal, are impatient, rude, callous, and uncaring. We do it unintentionally, without even thinking. Children aren't taught to do these things, they happen naturally. It seems to be part of who we are. In Christianity, we call this the "sinful nature" we are born with. Even if you don't agree with the "spiritual-ese" language, you can agree that no one is perfect. Simply calling it "sin" is shorthand, if you will.
Second, I didn't say I was afraid of hell. If you define hell as separation from God, then I'd agree it's something I don't desire. I love God, and desire to be with Him. But I would disagree with your negative phrasing. People who say "Christians are just afraid of hell" have a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. It's not just a place of eternal fire and torment we'd rather not go to! It's the absence of a God we have a relationship with. Since Christians believe humans are spiritual beings designed to be in communion with God, being apart from that very thing for all of eternity would indeed be torment.
I didn't say it was protection. It's cliche but true: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. At least I know the moral goals a Christian aspires to. With an atheist, I don't know what the goals are, or even if there are any at all.
False. History does prove it. You can think of some examples of religious zealotry (Christian and non-) run amuck, but there are also many examples of atheist and anti-religious zealotry. In fact, there have been more people killed by secular (atheistic) governments (Nazis killed millions of Jews, Stalin killed millions of dissenters, Christians murdered in China, Pol Pot and others in SE Asia) in the 20th century alone than by Christians in all twenty centuries together. This was addressed in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?
I would make a distinction between Christianity and Christendom. Sitting in a church pew does not make one Christian
I agree with the summaries of the evolution of Trek from TOS->TNG->DS9->V->E. Since the Great Bird of the Galaxy died, Trek has become cheesey and formulaic. TOS might have been campy in retrospect, but we must remember the time it was created in. Those are the characters we know and love. TOS had what it took; it was fans of TOS that got the space shuttle named, that got Trek revived on the big screen, and then again on the small screen. For 20 years, TOS was all there was, and the dream stayed alive. Trek would be better off if fans got what they really want, not what the producers think they want.
And what do we want? Our original characters, with original stories, handled with modern ideas of TV production. We want Excelsior. We want Sulu, Uhura, and Rand together with an ensemble cast, going back to the Trek roots we remember from TOS and TNG. Very human characters, with faults and idiosyncrasies, forging ahead into the unknown, representing the human ideal in less than ideal situations, and learning about themselves along the way. All the elements of Roddenberry's Trek, without the 60's-style studio pressure for a single strong lead. That's what we want. Not gratuitous nudity and action. Not continuity and plot errors big enough to fly a starship through. Not gee-whiz special effects.
This is positive indication that Pepsi should be winning the cola wars among Linux users. Because penguin == !polar bear == !Coke == Pepsi, right?
The problem is that using Lara Croft as the NetBSD mascot might land them in some legal quagmires.
And what precisely is wrong with people deciding the course of their own lives? Just because you may not agree that the course they've taken is wise is no justification for you (the minority, evidently) to dictate to them, especially in matters of how their money is spent. You're still free to spend as much of your own money on your children's education as you wish. Freedom: it's a good thing.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
It is in my best interest to look out for my fellow man because it is my individual best interest, not because I am part of a collective called society. It is immoral to force me to do something "for the greater good". I don't have the right to demand money from my neighbor to pay for my kids' education, and government cannot have a right that the people cannot give it. There are very few things that are truly for the "general welfare" rather than the "specific welfare" of groups or individuals, and I think they're pretty well enumerated in A1S8.
Additionally, if your abrogate your responsibility to provide your children's education, your right to educate them as you choose is also diminished. If Susie Jones in Vermont is compelled to furnish some portion of your little Johnny's schooling, shouldn't she feel she ought to have a say in how her money is spent? Do you want her putting her two cents in? I wouldn't. Educating your kids is your business alone, so take responsibility for it. If you want to pool together with others, great, but it should be voluntary. If I want to teach my kids at home, how dare you force me to pay some sort of tax to a school I'm not using.
Just because someone is wealthy does not make them any less deserving of every cent they own or any more obligated to help you out.
I've been a part of the Constititution Party for over three years, and I have yet to meet anyone who wants a theocracy. They would all recognize that for the tyranny it is. Just because someone wants to run government by principles driven home by religious belief does not make them promoters of theocracy. The belief that we are answerable to something higher than human government is one of the strongest reasons for having a limited government in the first place. What check does a non-religious person have from abusing power he is entrusted with?
Believe me, atheists are much safer in a nation run by Christians than Christians in a nation run by atheists. Christians have a higher calling to do good by everyone; with an atheist you have no such guarantee. Even though Christians are fallible, I'd rather take my chances with them than the likes of Stalin or Mao.
And might I say it is refreshing to see someone understands that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and that liberty is not license.
I agree that property taxes for education are distasteful. It should be tuition-based, IMO. If you choose not to have kids, you shouldn't have to pay for others' kids' education. If you do have kids, it's your responsibility to pay for their education. This may sound harsh, because some areas are more affluent and can afford better education, as you mention. But this is a land of liberty...you are free to move and try to make a better life for yourself elsewhere, but you are not guaranteed a better life just because you live here in America. Federal "leveling out" of economic disparity is precisely the idea that gave us the entitlement programs you mentioned. Schools can offer their own scholarship programs to help underprivileged but gifted students...they've been doing it at the university level for a long time. Schools can network to spread this benefit over larger geographic areas. The same benefit can be realized through a voluntary private bottom-up plan just as well as a mandated government top-down plan.
Too bad there aren't any Republicans that favor abolishing the Dept of Ed anymore. It's unconstitutional, and should go. But that's why I don't vote Republican anymore, either.
Thomas Jefferson said:
James Madison said:
I think it's pretty clear that Article 1 Section 8 specifies those powers that promote the general welfare.
We do have something for it to do. Several things in fact. Education is not one of them.
If it's not listed here explicitly, the federal government has no business doing it. Remember, the Founders had just fought a war against a tyrant who controlled too much of their lives. This document, the Constitution, strictly limited government (not the people) as to what powers it had. The powers listed here are only those absolutely necessary to have at the national level to make the States appear, in fact, a single nation. A silly nation it would be that had only part of it going to war, or one that used different money in different places, or had different customs and procedures when persons and goods crossed various borders. But education is not a "one-size-fits-all" situation. And as if that wasn't clear enough...
Raising children, including education, is the right of parents. If anything requires a bottom-up solution rather than a top-down one, it's education.
Why is it some Nebraskan's job to help pay for a school district in Vermont?
Not every "problem" in the world needs a top-down "solution". Schools districts are local entities, and should be controlled and financed locally.
Show me in the Constitution where the federal gubmint has any authority over education.
Maybe American public schools are broke, but private schools are doing fine, and most of the time on far less money per student than the public schools get. As with most other areas, privately-funded organizations have an incentive to spend money wisely and efficiently.
Yeah, with the kind of reasoning these schools are using, any kid with a brown belt or better ought to be suspended, maybe expelled in the case of your bud James. He's just too dangerous! "Remember Johnny, people don't kill people, guns/knives/nunchuks/karate kill people."
That's right. If the illusion of security is good enough for the Department of Homeland Security, it ought to be good enough for Microsoft! Who needs real security?
Because they pick boring (flat) spots to land in an attempt to be successful. Wouldn't do much good to land if it was in a crevasse, or on top of a boulder, or on an incline steep enough to topple down.
Yeah, that's what I say too. Why can't Apple come out with a 5 GB player for ~$27.50/GB? That's a performance/price point that I can afford. Instead of dropping prices to improve that ratio they increase the performance, but that still means I can't buy one.
I dunno, a $100 iPod would be OK. Far more portable than the 33-100 CDs worth of music it represents, far more portable than the CD player I could install in only one of our vehicles for that price, and definitely much cooler.
Did you leave the CD, or just leave the impression you'd reformatted the computer? :)
Care to elaborate? Many of us don't keep up on the inner workings of the kernel.
That's another good one for the department of redundancy department. (Hint: what does "et" mean?)
"Curses, foiled again! I'll get you, Red Planet!"
True. But we also have freedom. We don't unnecessarily restrict everybody from doing anything at all just so that nobody will ever be hurt. By your definition, murderers and rapists can never be "brought to justice"...but that doesn't mean we let them go scot-free.
You are concerned about justice, which is good. But where is the justice in punishing somebody for something that didn't happen? Our system stands by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" but pre-emptively limiting freedoms on the assumption (or statistical likelihood) that something will happen is not justice either.
I live in the Midwest. What hills? What bends? :) Seriously though, I have equal disdain for negligent drivers that think "dodging the other cars" is their only concern. Driving is not a video game. If only more drivers would understand that dashing around in a car is akin to wearing a loaded pistol on your hip. If you're not careful, it can hurt someone. But because it might happen is not a good reason to restrict guns or take them away, not is it a good reason to restrict cars.
Right on. Liberty is very powerful. And you know what Spider-man says.
Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.
No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!
Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.
Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.
NetBSD.
The shell is universally available. On some low-end systems (yes they still exist), Python and even Perl might not be installed.