You still have the responsibility to use them properly. For example, your right to free speech does mean it's right to slander someone. You are responsible for using your rights in a "good" way. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. If everyone exercised their rights responsibly, we'd need a lot fewer laws and have a lot fewer stupid lawsuits, and we could all get on with doing more productive things with our time. Our Creator gave us those inalienable rights, and He expects us to live up to the responsibility of the Golden Rule.
Who to declare war against, that's a good question. If Congress had done it's job the way it's supposed to, maybe they'd realize that there isn't any nation-state to declare war on in this situation. Maybe that would have given them pause to think, "I wonder why a non-gov't unit would be mad enough to attack us, and what can we do about it?" Maybe then they'd realize we shouldn't be meddling all over the world, trying to be the global police. If we tended to our own business and pulled out of the UN we'd have a lot fewer problems.
But instead, they give the president (head of the executive branch which by definition puts things into effect, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces which by definition kills people and breaks things) a blank check to act as he sees fit. The legislative branch makes laws (sets boundaries), which is why Congress and not the President has the power to declare war, so that it is limited in scope and has a clear objective.
Unfortunately the Constitution is circumvented every day anymore, so no big deal, right? *sigh*
Wrong wrong wrong. The GC assumes there are certain "rules" to waging war and even states what those rules are. Abide by the rules, that is "fight fair", and you get GC protections. Terrorist, by definition, do not fight fair, no GC "POW" status for the detainees.
Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. If you can't live up to the responsibilities, you have no place demanding your rights. In this case, the responsibility is acting like a soldier. If you don't act like a soldier, why should you expect your captors to treat you like one?
The fact that Congress has abdicated it's duty to declare war is a completely separate issue. We can talk about the Constitutionality of that some other time.
Not only that, but after so many false hits the screeners stop believing the results. If 99 out of 100 hits is a false positive, you can bet that screeners are going to be just waving people through. So again, we have only the illusion of security, and possibly even less real security than before.
What's wrong with El Al letting the guy on the plane with a gun? Obviously he had no intention of killing people or hijacking the plane with it. Most gun owners have no intention of hurting other people. Actually allowing people to provide self-defense for themselves, rather than ridiculing or criminalizing them, could be a good idea.
Self-evident. No assumption. If you disagree, you have some serious delusions of grandeur.
an "interesting" universe
I suppose if you're so self-absorbed that you're only interested in what you yourself can imagine, then I suppose such a universe might be interesting. Personally I find it more interesting to be challenged by the things I could not have imagined for myself.
Seems to me that's just self-delusion. Who says the physical universe is boring? Your own universe will be limited by your intelligence and creativity. We are no where near figuring out everything in the real universe yet. That goes to show that a personal universe would be less interesting than the real one. If one thinks that the universe he creates is more interesting, doesn't that imply he thinks the universe should cater to his whims? Seems egotistically arrogant.
I value other people and the interactions I have with them. I wouldn't get that in a personal universe, or if I did, those people would necessarily be less than I am. Only an infinite God (which you and I are not) could create an "interesting" universe.
I wonder if they can still alter the Io fly-by enough to take Galileo within about 500 meters of Amalthea. That would be fun to see. Can you remotely aim a bullet travelling thousands of mph to miss a tiny rock by a hair's breadth? You probably wouldn't get very good pictures, but it would be cool.
Equality of opportunity is the dream of American Constitutionalists, and one reason for America's unprecedented growth in the 19th century. Equality of outcome is the nightmare of Harrison Bergeron, and the dream of American Democrats and other socialists.
If you want something, earn it yourself. Else you don't value it. I don't know how many times I've seen this myself, when I see the well-to-do families giving their kids neato toys that get broken, their teens nice cars that get wrecked. You know you've seen it too.
I'm glad I'm not Belgian. The US government's redistribution of wealth is bad enough.
I completely agree. I want to write in HTML (or some equivalent) and deal with content primarily. Style issues can be left to somebody else that has a clue how things are supposed to "look nice". (I sometimes find myself linking to the W3C Ultramarine CSS, because though I know CSS rules I don't have a sense for style.) If there were a good HTML text (not WYSIWY-won't-G) editor that felt polished (not hackish) I'd love it. Much as I like BBEdit, it's not there yet.
You missed one of the nicest features of using HTML/XML for documention: the fact that with CSS you can get basic content transformation.
What does it mean? It means that you can have rules for online display (that we're most familiar with), different style rules that kick in only when you print (implemented in Mozilla and Opera), and different rules only when you are projecting a presentation (implemented in Opera). This lets you make it accessible on the WWW, yet write your documentation only once without futzing with a nicer "print friendly" copy. If you do a presentation, you can point your audience to the very URL you're using for their later reference. Less chance for confusion.
I remember reading Hot Dog magazine (or something like that) back when I was a kid. It said that his dialogue translated something like, "What are you doing over there? We need you over here!" Makes no sense whatsoever in the scene.
OK, this is relying on a vague memory of something seen once about 18 years ago. So take it for what it's worth.
I agree that the problem with any government is that it tries to assume too much power, moving it away from the people it governs. The best government is the one that remains under the control of the people. Why would anyone want to cede away control of their own life to someone who is not held properly accountable?
However, the problem is that "human rights" is a nebulous term. Who decides what they are? Who enforces these laws, and how? Basic human rights, as described in the Declaration and Constitution, are God-given and inalienable. Some call these basic rights the first law of nature. Some think that abortion is or should be a basic human right, while others deny it is a right at all. Who's right and who's wrong? Some say that guns are dangerous and a threat to society, while others say gun ownership is the only way to provide adequate defense. Who's right and who's wrong? If we try to err on the side of caution...which side is that? I know I have my own ideas...but what if someone else who disagrees with me wins and tries to impose their ideas on me?
These are intensely private and personal things. Can we justify forcing values on others just because some global council says it's the law? Where does national sovereignty kick in? In many countries life is cheap, and genocide is common. They won't respect a "right to life" unless the culture has a moral basis for it. In many places, liberty is unknown, and women and children are treated like slaves. They won't respect a "right to liberty" until the culture has a moral basis for it. Property is confiscated by many governments, and you are not allowed to keep the fruit of your labors. These countries won't resepct a "right to pursue happiness" unless the culture has a moral basis for it.
I think that the reason the West, particularly the U.S., has experienced the prosperity it has in recent centuries is because of the influence of Christianity. Jesus was the greatest civil libertarian the world has known. He knew a government wasn't the answer. He wanted to change the heart at the individual level. Respect for human life (all life: women, children, elderly, sick) all grew when the Good News was preached. Freedom replaced tyranny as the model of Christian love dictated that everyone be treated justly. With that freedom came the possibility to pursue individual dreams and better oneself.
Remember what I said earlier about the U.S. being a homogeneous society. John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Early America was quite definitely Christian. Unless the heart is right, any government will become corrupt, and a corrupt gov't with any sort of power is dangerous. As a check against that, it is wise not to create any large gov't, and keep most of the power deemed necessary for gov't as local to the people as possible.
I don't know if global gov't can be done right. I've read most of the Federalist Papers, and one of them states that the idea that a U.S. federal (as opposed to remaining individual and independent) gov't was feasible was based on the idea that the culture was pretty homogeneous. It works for a "melting pot" society to have one gov't. Without it, there are bound to be problems. See the breakup of Yugoslavia and USSR into their original ethnic divisions for proof. I see the increased turbulence in urban America as partly due to "hyphenated" Americanism and the replacement of the "melting pot" with the "tossed salad." It's one thing to be proud of your cultural heritage, it's another when it becomes divisive and a roadblock to working together with others as a single society.
Too bad nobody's using real "specie" money anymore. It gives governments too much latitude to tinker with the economy. They withdraw the real value out of the system, while giving us worthless paper that's only valuable as long as we continue to have faith in the system. History bears out that any economy based on a fiat currency eventually dies in hyperinflation.
The banks are a joke, too. If they go bankrupt and you lose you're money, you're FDIC insured, right? Well who pays the gov't to bail out the banks? You do. You're the taxpayer. Your money isn't safe, because you still lost. But the banker's butt is covered, and he gets rich at taxpayer expense. We're headed for a cliff.
Down with the Federal Reserve. Down with the 16th "Amendment".
Your dad sounds a little like me. Wouldn't happen to know if MS provides disk images of Word 5.1 to registered users, would you? I'm trying to get some of my old 68k machines back in service, but the third installer disk is shot and I don't have a backup.
No, it's true. At least, it has been until the last year or so.
I used my 1993-era Centris for 5 years. I bought a G3 in 1998 not because the 650 was too slow for the work I was doing, but because it was getting difficult to find the new apps written in 68k code. If Apple hadn't switched to the PPC, I would have gotten another year, or possibly two, out of the Centris. I use the heck out of my computer, and do some casual development. Seeing 10-12 year old Macs doing file or print serving is not unusual. Seeing 6-8 year old Macs doing basic word processing and email is not unusual. But I never see anybody using a PC more than 5 years old. By the time it's 4 y.o. the user is complaining. And even given the larger number of PCs over Macs, I've heard of far more PC components burning out than Mac components. I've got 5 compact Macs (Classics, SE's) in my garage and they all boot and work fine.
Fact: Macs last longer, and are usable longer, then PCs.
Also, expandability does not equal age-ability. The only thing I added to the Centris in five years was RAM. The only thing I've added to the G3 in 3½ years is RAM.
Within the past year, this has changed a little, I think. Processors have reached the point where they're fast enough to do everything required. Apps are not complex enough to use all that speed yet. But I still think you'll see older Macs in service, whereas older PCs will be in the recycle bin.
What about following standards rather than relying on the behavior of one particular browser? Your solution is just as bad as MS forcing "their version" of HTML on everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
You still have the responsibility to use them properly. For example, your right to free speech does mean it's right to slander someone. You are responsible for using your rights in a "good" way. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. If everyone exercised their rights responsibly, we'd need a lot fewer laws and have a lot fewer stupid lawsuits, and we could all get on with doing more productive things with our time. Our Creator gave us those inalienable rights, and He expects us to live up to the responsibility of the Golden Rule.
Who to declare war against, that's a good question. If Congress had done it's job the way it's supposed to, maybe they'd realize that there isn't any nation-state to declare war on in this situation. Maybe that would have given them pause to think, "I wonder why a non-gov't unit would be mad enough to attack us, and what can we do about it?" Maybe then they'd realize we shouldn't be meddling all over the world, trying to be the global police. If we tended to our own business and pulled out of the UN we'd have a lot fewer problems.
But instead, they give the president (head of the executive branch which by definition puts things into effect, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces which by definition kills people and breaks things) a blank check to act as he sees fit. The legislative branch makes laws (sets boundaries), which is why Congress and not the President has the power to declare war, so that it is limited in scope and has a clear objective.
Unfortunately the Constitution is circumvented every day anymore, so no big deal, right? *sigh*
This point was made much better elsewhere on this thread. Go read it for a better description of the problem.
Wrong wrong wrong. The GC assumes there are certain "rules" to waging war and even states what those rules are. Abide by the rules, that is "fight fair", and you get GC protections. Terrorist, by definition, do not fight fair, no GC "POW" status for the detainees.
Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. If you can't live up to the responsibilities, you have no place demanding your rights. In this case, the responsibility is acting like a soldier. If you don't act like a soldier, why should you expect your captors to treat you like one?
The fact that Congress has abdicated it's duty to declare war is a completely separate issue. We can talk about the Constitutionality of that some other time.
Not only that, but after so many false hits the screeners stop believing the results. If 99 out of 100 hits is a false positive, you can bet that screeners are going to be just waving people through. So again, we have only the illusion of security, and possibly even less real security than before.
Systems like this don't work, and can't work.
What's wrong with El Al letting the guy on the plane with a gun? Obviously he had no intention of killing people or hijacking the plane with it. Most gun owners have no intention of hurting other people. Actually allowing people to provide self-defense for themselves, rather than ridiculing or criminalizing them, could be a good idea.
Self-evident. No assumption. If you disagree, you have some serious delusions of grandeur.
I suppose if you're so self-absorbed that you're only interested in what you yourself can imagine, then I suppose such a universe might be interesting. Personally I find it more interesting to be challenged by the things I could not have imagined for myself.
Semi-related topic. Get several Macs running Linux and cluster them. Includes about the best instructions you can find for getting Linux to run on Nubus Macs, too.
Seems to me that's just self-delusion. Who says the physical universe is boring? Your own universe will be limited by your intelligence and creativity. We are no where near figuring out everything in the real universe yet. That goes to show that a personal universe would be less interesting than the real one. If one thinks that the universe he creates is more interesting, doesn't that imply he thinks the universe should cater to his whims? Seems egotistically arrogant.
I value other people and the interactions I have with them. I wouldn't get that in a personal universe, or if I did, those people would necessarily be less than I am. Only an infinite God (which you and I are not) could create an "interesting" universe.
Reminds me of article 2 from the Bill of Non-Rights.
Sorry, had to be said.
I wonder if they can still alter the Io fly-by enough to take Galileo within about 500 meters of Amalthea. That would be fun to see. Can you remotely aim a bullet travelling thousands of mph to miss a tiny rock by a hair's breadth? You probably wouldn't get very good pictures, but it would be cool.
I thought all true geeks remembered this from Leather Goddesses of Phobos. Mac geeks might remember it from Marathon instead.
Maybe Mozilla should have used the html2ps code for printing, then. (License compatibility?) Small tools.
Equality of opportunity is the dream of American Constitutionalists, and one reason for America's unprecedented growth in the 19th century. Equality of outcome is the nightmare of Harrison Bergeron, and the dream of American Democrats and other socialists.
If you want something, earn it yourself. Else you don't value it. I don't know how many times I've seen this myself, when I see the well-to-do families giving their kids neato toys that get broken, their teens nice cars that get wrecked. You know you've seen it too.
I'm glad I'm not Belgian. The US government's redistribution of wealth is bad enough.
I completely agree. I want to write in HTML (or some equivalent) and deal with content primarily. Style issues can be left to somebody else that has a clue how things are supposed to "look nice". (I sometimes find myself linking to the W3C Ultramarine CSS, because though I know CSS rules I don't have a sense for style.) If there were a good HTML text (not WYSIWY-won't-G) editor that felt polished (not hackish) I'd love it. Much as I like BBEdit, it's not there yet.
You missed one of the nicest features of using HTML/XML for documention: the fact that with CSS you can get basic content transformation.
What does it mean? It means that you can have rules for online display (that we're most familiar with), different style rules that kick in only when you print (implemented in Mozilla and Opera), and different rules only when you are projecting a presentation (implemented in Opera). This lets you make it accessible on the WWW, yet write your documentation only once without futzing with a nicer "print friendly" copy. If you do a presentation, you can point your audience to the very URL you're using for their later reference. Less chance for confusion.
I remember reading Hot Dog magazine (or something like that) back when I was a kid. It said that his dialogue translated something like, "What are you doing over there? We need you over here!" Makes no sense whatsoever in the scene.
OK, this is relying on a vague memory of something seen once about 18 years ago. So take it for what it's worth.
I agree that the problem with any government is that it tries to assume too much power, moving it away from the people it governs. The best government is the one that remains under the control of the people. Why would anyone want to cede away control of their own life to someone who is not held properly accountable?
However, the problem is that "human rights" is a nebulous term. Who decides what they are? Who enforces these laws, and how? Basic human rights, as described in the Declaration and Constitution, are God-given and inalienable. Some call these basic rights the first law of nature. Some think that abortion is or should be a basic human right, while others deny it is a right at all. Who's right and who's wrong? Some say that guns are dangerous and a threat to society, while others say gun ownership is the only way to provide adequate defense. Who's right and who's wrong? If we try to err on the side of caution...which side is that? I know I have my own ideas...but what if someone else who disagrees with me wins and tries to impose their ideas on me?
These are intensely private and personal things. Can we justify forcing values on others just because some global council says it's the law? Where does national sovereignty kick in? In many countries life is cheap, and genocide is common. They won't respect a "right to life" unless the culture has a moral basis for it. In many places, liberty is unknown, and women and children are treated like slaves. They won't respect a "right to liberty" until the culture has a moral basis for it. Property is confiscated by many governments, and you are not allowed to keep the fruit of your labors. These countries won't resepct a "right to pursue happiness" unless the culture has a moral basis for it.
I think that the reason the West, particularly the U.S., has experienced the prosperity it has in recent centuries is because of the influence of Christianity. Jesus was the greatest civil libertarian the world has known. He knew a government wasn't the answer. He wanted to change the heart at the individual level. Respect for human life (all life: women, children, elderly, sick) all grew when the Good News was preached. Freedom replaced tyranny as the model of Christian love dictated that everyone be treated justly. With that freedom came the possibility to pursue individual dreams and better oneself.
Remember what I said earlier about the U.S. being a homogeneous society. John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Early America was quite definitely Christian. Unless the heart is right, any government will become corrupt, and a corrupt gov't with any sort of power is dangerous. As a check against that, it is wise not to create any large gov't, and keep most of the power deemed necessary for gov't as local to the people as possible.
I don't know if global gov't can be done right. I've read most of the Federalist Papers, and one of them states that the idea that a U.S. federal (as opposed to remaining individual and independent) gov't was feasible was based on the idea that the culture was pretty homogeneous. It works for a "melting pot" society to have one gov't. Without it, there are bound to be problems. See the breakup of Yugoslavia and USSR into their original ethnic divisions for proof. I see the increased turbulence in urban America as partly due to "hyphenated" Americanism and the replacement of the "melting pot" with the "tossed salad." It's one thing to be proud of your cultural heritage, it's another when it becomes divisive and a roadblock to working together with others as a single society.
Too bad nobody's using real "specie" money anymore. It gives governments too much latitude to tinker with the economy. They withdraw the real value out of the system, while giving us worthless paper that's only valuable as long as we continue to have faith in the system. History bears out that any economy based on a fiat currency eventually dies in hyperinflation.
The banks are a joke, too. If they go bankrupt and you lose you're money, you're FDIC insured, right? Well who pays the gov't to bail out the banks? You do. You're the taxpayer. Your money isn't safe, because you still lost. But the banker's butt is covered, and he gets rich at taxpayer expense. We're headed for a cliff.
Down with the Federal Reserve. Down with the 16th "Amendment".
Want to make a difference?
Your dad sounds a little like me. Wouldn't happen to know if MS provides disk images of Word 5.1 to registered users, would you? I'm trying to get some of my old 68k machines back in service, but the third installer disk is shot and I don't have a backup.
No, it's true. At least, it has been until the last year or so.
I used my 1993-era Centris for 5 years. I bought a G3 in 1998 not because the 650 was too slow for the work I was doing, but because it was getting difficult to find the new apps written in 68k code. If Apple hadn't switched to the PPC, I would have gotten another year, or possibly two, out of the Centris. I use the heck out of my computer, and do some casual development. Seeing 10-12 year old Macs doing file or print serving is not unusual. Seeing 6-8 year old Macs doing basic word processing and email is not unusual. But I never see anybody using a PC more than 5 years old. By the time it's 4 y.o. the user is complaining. And even given the larger number of PCs over Macs, I've heard of far more PC components burning out than Mac components. I've got 5 compact Macs (Classics, SE's) in my garage and they all boot and work fine.
Fact: Macs last longer, and are usable longer, then PCs.
Also, expandability does not equal age-ability. The only thing I added to the Centris in five years was RAM. The only thing I've added to the G3 in 3½ years is RAM.
Within the past year, this has changed a little, I think. Processors have reached the point where they're fast enough to do everything required. Apps are not complex enough to use all that speed yet. But I still think you'll see older Macs in service, whereas older PCs will be in the recycle bin.
What about following standards rather than relying on the behavior of one particular browser? Your solution is just as bad as MS forcing "their version" of HTML on everyone.
Doubting that (I use Opera) I checked the HTML. It's invalid. It uses plenty of </p> tags without the corresponding <p> tags.
Looks like your article is one long paragraph. Is there an easier-to-read version somewhere?