Scary! IANAL, but I think the principle is called "nullification by jury." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Authority derives from the consent of the governed, so ultimately the common people can overturn the worst of laws. This can happen peacably (jury nullification) or not (revolution).
Personally, I don't think see why our rights have to be trampled even during times of war. Tradition is not law...just because liberties were trampled in the past doesn't make it right.
But I agree that if we're going to engage in armed hostilities, Congress should declare war. If it's not serious enough to declare war, then we shouldn't be fighting. If it's not war, the President should have no authority to send our troops out to kill or be killed.
No, the formal declaration of war by Congress is a far cry different than passing a bill authorizing the President to do whatever he thinks is necessary. That is exactly the kind of irresponsibility that separation of powers in the Constitution is supposed to prevent! Congress is shirking its duties big-time. It is unconstitutional for Congress to give the President carte blanche war powers like that.
Then let's work on getting SVG and MathML support solidified in Mozilla. Making every academic download the latest Mozilla isn't asking too much, if it supported the technology to let them publish their own work.
Maybe nobody realizes this, but there is a board specifically for discussing UI issues. There's been some really good stuff there, but like most slash sites (other than this one) the traffic seems a tad slow. Go liven it up.
I think the best way to explain this to "mom" is something like the following. Make a list of reasonable "fair use" activities that "mom" does currently. Then explain that these will be illegal and uncircumventable if this bill passes into law.
Anyone want to start such a list? Unfortunately my knowledge of the particulars of DMCA and SSSCA is limited beyond "it's bad and infringes on our rights".
[...] dig into the Federalist Papers. There is alot of ideas packed in there about how to run organizations and talk of the human condition. These topics are valueable. As well as the discusion techniques you learn in class and dealing with other classmates. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison are serious thinkers. You can learn alot from them.
As someone who is reading TFP right now, I cannot agree more. Even knowing that our gov't run public school system doesn't teach us half of what we need to know about gov't, the Constitution, and so forth, I've been amazed. TFP is good stuff, people.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
In the 140 years before the US gov't created the Fed, there was virtually zero inflation. The economy regulated itself. Why is the Fed even necessary? That's the question here. The answer is: it isn't needed. Why is the gov't tinkering with (i.e. trying to control) the economy?
Dollars are not backed by gold. (See replies by quartz and Brian See.) The US no longer has a value-based money, it has fiat-based money...that is, based on nothing but debt. If the banks go under, they are insured, right? By whom? The US gov't. Who pays for the US gov't? Taxpayers. So we taxpayers are held responsible for bad business decisions of the country's financial institutions.
The Fed governs how much money is in circulation. As they add more "dollars" inflation grows because there is no real value behind it. The value is just spread through more pieces of paper, so each one is worth less. The 16th Amendment keeps this from getting out of hand by permitting the gov't to regulate how much we can earn, sopping up any extra dollars floating around. (IANAE [I am not an economist] so this 5 sentence description hardly does justice.) This was what caused the Great Depression.
A cashless society will eventually bring about our downfall. The gov't already has too much power to manipulate the economy; it doesn't need any more. Fortunately there is a remarkable remedy for this situation. Vote Constitution if you want economy backed by something of substantive value.
3) Run for office. Elections are right around the door. There are plenty of geeky people in the US who have enough knowledge of political science and related fields to make a run for it. Competent legislaturers are a must.
I oppose the DMCA, SSSCA, and basically anything else that restricts our Constitutional freedoms. And I am seriously considering the possibility of running for public office. Would slashdotters vote for me? Good question.
Was anyone watching Millionaire a couple weeks ago when that poli-sci major said he wanted to go into politics? That makes me sick. Politics should not be a vocation unto itself. It should be done by normal people who are concerned enough to sacrifice their normal pursuits for a time. I don't think the Founders intended life-long bureaucrats to be running government.
And this is precisely why public funding of campaigns is idiotic. If the gov't controlled who got campaign money, who do you think would get it? The incumbents! It's the current problem, just worse.
The solution is to remove all restrictions on campaign funding. Money is speech. Restricting how I spend money is to restrict what I can say.
They "vote themselves raises." Who wouldn't vote himself a raise?
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and make the senators once again accountable to the States they are supposed to represent. Furthermore, federal legislators' pay should be determined by the State they represent, not by themselves! This might mean that Mississippi senators don't make as much as California representatives, but at least the federal government becomes accountable to someone other than themselves.
Email your legislators as well. That's what I plan to do. You've got a better chance of audience with them, and they're the ones who actually draft the laws.
If Israel is running an apartheid/racist state, it's doing a damned shoddy job. Israeli Arabs, 20 percent of the population, have full civil rights. Arabs, Druze and Bedouins hold 12 seats in the Knesset.
Israel's Arab citizens have a 95 percent literacy rate, thanks to 1,000 government-funded schools. More than 5,000 Arab students attend Israeli universities and technical schools. In a recent poll, while 70 percent of Israeli Arabs said their loyalty lies with the Palestinians, the same percentage said there's no other nation in the region where they'd prefer to live, including under the Palestinian Authority.
Israeli society is the most multicultural on earth. It's taken in Jews from almost every land, including 40,000 from Ethiopia. It also accepted hundreds of Vietnamese boat people in the '70s. Roughly 60 percent of its population could be classified as non-Caucasian.
The Arabs are somewhat less inclusive. Anti-Semitism, racism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities thrives in the Middle East.
Egypt's Coptic Christians would consider second-class citizenship a promotion. Sudan's Muslim government enslaves black tribesmen.
Shiite Iran persecutes Christians, Jews (11 recently were convicted in a show trial of spying for Israel), Bha'is and Sunni Moslems. Iraq and Syria kill Kurds.
Jews are prohibited from living in Jordan. Christians can't practice their religion in Saudi Arabia. Arafat wants 120,000 Jews now living on the West Bank to be cleansed from his future Palestinian state.
And Arabs accuse Israel of oppression. The Jews have a word for this - chutzpah.
There's more, but that's the gist. Don't be so fast to point fingers.
I personally wrote 3 letters to my congressman last night on various issues. I have 2 more to go that I didn't get done. (I thought it better to break it up topically than overwhelm the guy with one big letter he wouldn't read.) If you don't like what the government is doing, tell them! Whining on Slashdot doesn't help at all.
Stored procedures offer several advantages to the programmer that needs to interface with a db.
Encapsulation. The logic is stored in the database. This means you can just call a procedure, and BAM!, stuff happens. You don't need to know all the intricacies or even know SQL that well. You just need to know the expected inputs and outputs.
Performance. The SQL is (or at least can be) stored in a compiled, optimized form. This saves the SQL engine the work of doing that on the fly like it would have to if you just passed a string of statements.
Bandwidth. Related to that, you're also going to save a bit by passing a smaller string around.
There's probably some more I'm forgetting. All in all, if you have a bunch of queries that are repetitious and seldom change (other than parameters) stored procedures are a great thing.
I agree completely. All the Marathons had something I never saw in DOOM/Quake/Unreal: a plotline. (And they play reasonably on a 25 MHz 68040.) The environment was more 3D than DOOM, though it used sprites for monsters. I am still playing Marathon scenarios.
Yes, I know we have a republic- but we also do have a Representative Democracy. The people should be in control of their representatives. Right now votes are a matter of money, not a matter of ideal, and that should be changed.
I'd agree that the republic has democratic representation in the legislature. I'd agree that people should be in control of their legislators instead of big corps. Look again at what the 17th Amendment (which I suggested repealing in my previous post) did. It made senators "accountable" to the people of the state at large by changing to a popular vote. Instead of being selected by a small group of knowledgable persons (state legislature) they are selected by a big group of mostly ignorant people. Because the campaign must now cover the entire state, the fund raising budget goes astronomical, so large campaign donations are a necessity. The senators thus elected are not any more accountable to the people (and often less) and the US federal gov't has no direct accountability to its constituent states. Repeal the 17th if you want gov't that's less influenced by Big Money and more responsive to the people.
The reason money should not be considered speech is because money is controlled by organizations and not individuals. Yes, it would be nice to donate a few hundred dollars to your favorite politician, but it won't matter when some corporation is donating a few million to his competitor. Or worse, some corporation is paying a few million dollars to the politician you elected so that he'd enact legislation that you and your countrymen oppose.
The solution is not to limit money, because that restricts the rights of individuals to affect their gov't as well. The real solution is to adjust gov't so that money doesn't have as much effect! That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment. It makes money less of an issue. US senate candidates would "campaign" only within the couple hundred people in their state's legislature. Besides, many corps "hedge their bets" by making campaign contributions to both major parties, just to say they supported the winner. Money is speech, no two ways about it. I don't see any way you can restrict corporate speech without restricting individual speech also.
Besides that, you are naive to think that third parties will in any way benefit with fewer contribution limits. We didn't get anywhere near reaching donation limits to third parties in the last several elections- why would getting rid of those limits help them? It seems to me it would only hurt them as the two major parties (whose multi million dollar campaigns are held in check by the regulations) would be getting even more money.
The Constitution and Libertarian parties themselves want contribution limits removed. They don't care if it doesn't help them, it's the principle. If the principles win, then that party has won a victory. Look at the US Communist Party...they are winning because the Democrats are advancing their principles, even though there are no communists in office.
I just don't think the problem is government. It is corporate control of government. The people should control the government- not the businesses.
I agree with you to a point. The problem is really not that the special interests (more general than businesses) have control (though they do). The problem is that the gov't is too big, and has the power to run our lives. If the gov't couldn't run our lives to the degree it does (that is, if it were held to its proper Constitutional limits), then the issue of special interests in gov't would go away. If there's no power to grab, special interests can't grab it! The federal gov't should be limited to the least amount of power it needs to perform its legitimate duties as outlined in the Constitution.
Instead, for a truly fair system, limit *all* political spending to a flat ammount provided to any candidate who meets the basic requirements. Provide free airfare and a certain ammount of free airtime. Prevent *any* political donations.
Who decides the "basic requirements"? The incumbents. That's exactly the same problem we have now. The RepuboDems control the election laws. Who pays for the free airtime? TV/radio stations are businesses, and they deserve to get paid. The gov't should pay for it, you say? No, thanks! I don't want any portion of my money (taxes) used to support the candidates I oppose! Where's the freedom there? I should be able to support (financially or any other way) the candidate I like, and not compelled to support the ones I don't! I want liberty of conscience!
Political donations are bribes, plain and simple. Bribes subvert our political system and should be treated like treason, long jail time and revoking of your right to participate in the political system.
So it's illegal for me to express my opinion? That's what I do when I support a candidate, by speaking on his behalf or contributing financially. I'm glad I don't live in your world.
Spending caps are the only way to get any equity into the system. No third-party candidate can get a fair chance, the fact that the big two parties get almost all the funding means only the independantly rich can run for office.
Spending caps are wrong on principle. Maybe they are not a panacea...but I'll oppose them just the same. I should have the freedom to support whom I choose, and oppose whom I choose, with no interference from gov't whatsoever! And check out my previous post...repeal the 17th Amendment and you'll get senators that are less reliant on big corporate bribes because they won't be popularly elected (and thus in need of big campaign budgets).
I believe it is your solutions that won't fix the problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Scary! IANAL, but I think the principle is called "nullification by jury." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Authority derives from the consent of the governed, so ultimately the common people can overturn the worst of laws. This can happen peacably (jury nullification) or not (revolution).
It's called the 2nd Amendment. As long as the armed forces are doing their job to begin with.
Office of Homeland Defense == Internal Security Police == KGB
'Nuf said.
Personally, I don't think see why our rights have to be trampled even during times of war. Tradition is not law...just because liberties were trampled in the past doesn't make it right.
But I agree that if we're going to engage in armed hostilities, Congress should declare war. If it's not serious enough to declare war, then we shouldn't be fighting. If it's not war, the President should have no authority to send our troops out to kill or be killed.
No, the formal declaration of war by Congress is a far cry different than passing a bill authorizing the President to do whatever he thinks is necessary. That is exactly the kind of irresponsibility that separation of powers in the Constitution is supposed to prevent! Congress is shirking its duties big-time. It is unconstitutional for Congress to give the President carte blanche war powers like that.
Then let's work on getting SVG and MathML support solidified in Mozilla. Making every academic download the latest Mozilla isn't asking too much, if it supported the technology to let them publish their own work.
Maybe nobody realizes this, but there is a board specifically for discussing UI issues. There's been some really good stuff there, but like most slash sites (other than this one) the traffic seems a tad slow. Go liven it up.
I think the best way to explain this to "mom" is something like the following. Make a list of reasonable "fair use" activities that "mom" does currently. Then explain that these will be illegal and uncircumventable if this bill passes into law.
Anyone want to start such a list? Unfortunately my knowledge of the particulars of DMCA and SSSCA is limited beyond "it's bad and infringes on our rights".
As someone who is reading TFP right now, I cannot agree more. Even knowing that our gov't run public school system doesn't teach us half of what we need to know about gov't, the Constitution, and so forth, I've been amazed. TFP is good stuff, people.
Heck, kids aren't even learning that in HS anymore. When I talk about politics with people, they are clueless about the issue.
Thanks, ESR.
In the 140 years before the US gov't created the Fed, there was virtually zero inflation. The economy regulated itself. Why is the Fed even necessary? That's the question here. The answer is: it isn't needed. Why is the gov't tinkering with (i.e. trying to control) the economy?
Dollars are not backed by gold. (See replies by quartz and Brian See.) The US no longer has a value-based money, it has fiat-based money...that is, based on nothing but debt. If the banks go under, they are insured, right? By whom? The US gov't. Who pays for the US gov't? Taxpayers. So we taxpayers are held responsible for bad business decisions of the country's financial institutions.
The Fed governs how much money is in circulation. As they add more "dollars" inflation grows because there is no real value behind it. The value is just spread through more pieces of paper, so each one is worth less. The 16th Amendment keeps this from getting out of hand by permitting the gov't to regulate how much we can earn, sopping up any extra dollars floating around. (IANAE [I am not an economist] so this 5 sentence description hardly does justice.) This was what caused the Great Depression.
A cashless society will eventually bring about our downfall. The gov't already has too much power to manipulate the economy; it doesn't need any more. Fortunately there is a remarkable remedy for this situation. Vote Constitution if you want economy backed by something of substantive value.
I oppose the DMCA, SSSCA, and basically anything else that restricts our Constitutional freedoms. And I am seriously considering the possibility of running for public office. Would slashdotters vote for me? Good question.
Was anyone watching Millionaire a couple weeks ago when that poli-sci major said he wanted to go into politics? That makes me sick. Politics should not be a vocation unto itself. It should be done by normal people who are concerned enough to sacrifice their normal pursuits for a time. I don't think the Founders intended life-long bureaucrats to be running government.
And this is precisely why public funding of campaigns is idiotic. If the gov't controlled who got campaign money, who do you think would get it? The incumbents! It's the current problem, just worse.
The solution is to remove all restrictions on campaign funding. Money is speech. Restricting how I spend money is to restrict what I can say.
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and make the senators once again accountable to the States they are supposed to represent. Furthermore, federal legislators' pay should be determined by the State they represent, not by themselves! This might mean that Mississippi senators don't make as much as California representatives, but at least the federal government becomes accountable to someone other than themselves.
Quite right. The 17th Amendment crippled States' power to reign in the feds. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Email your legislators as well. That's what I plan to do. You've got a better chance of audience with them, and they're the ones who actually draft the laws.
Here are three other good "letters" I've found. I like yours as well.
If you're worried about encroachments on your freedom, you should be voting Constitution or Libertarian.
You don't know too much about the situation in Israel, do you? Here's more you should know. Let me quote a bit.
There's more, but that's the gist. Don't be so fast to point fingers.
If anyone wants to donate PowerMac stuff, I'll take it. I'm so po' I can't even afford the "or" let alone hardware for a cheap development box.
I'm also considering a run for office in 2002. Maybe that will help make a difference.
Precisely.
I personally wrote 3 letters to my congressman last night on various issues. I have 2 more to go that I didn't get done. (I thought it better to break it up topically than overwhelm the guy with one big letter he wouldn't read.) If you don't like what the government is doing, tell them! Whining on Slashdot doesn't help at all.
Stored procedures offer several advantages to the programmer that needs to interface with a db.
There's probably some more I'm forgetting. All in all, if you have a bunch of queries that are repetitious and seldom change (other than parameters) stored procedures are a great thing.
I agree completely. All the Marathons had something I never saw in DOOM/Quake/Unreal: a plotline. (And they play reasonably on a 25 MHz 68040.) The environment was more 3D than DOOM, though it used sprites for monsters. I am still playing Marathon scenarios.
I'd agree that the republic has democratic representation in the legislature. I'd agree that people should be in control of their legislators instead of big corps. Look again at what the 17th Amendment (which I suggested repealing in my previous post) did. It made senators "accountable" to the people of the state at large by changing to a popular vote. Instead of being selected by a small group of knowledgable persons (state legislature) they are selected by a big group of mostly ignorant people. Because the campaign must now cover the entire state, the fund raising budget goes astronomical, so large campaign donations are a necessity. The senators thus elected are not any more accountable to the people (and often less) and the US federal gov't has no direct accountability to its constituent states. Repeal the 17th if you want gov't that's less influenced by Big Money and more responsive to the people.
The solution is not to limit money, because that restricts the rights of individuals to affect their gov't as well. The real solution is to adjust gov't so that money doesn't have as much effect! That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment. It makes money less of an issue. US senate candidates would "campaign" only within the couple hundred people in their state's legislature. Besides, many corps "hedge their bets" by making campaign contributions to both major parties, just to say they supported the winner. Money is speech, no two ways about it. I don't see any way you can restrict corporate speech without restricting individual speech also.
The Constitution and Libertarian parties themselves want contribution limits removed. They don't care if it doesn't help them, it's the principle. If the principles win, then that party has won a victory. Look at the US Communist Party...they are winning because the Democrats are advancing their principles, even though there are no communists in office.
I agree with you to a point. The problem is really not that the special interests (more general than businesses) have control (though they do). The problem is that the gov't is too big, and has the power to run our lives. If the gov't couldn't run our lives to the degree it does (that is, if it were held to its proper Constitutional limits), then the issue of special interests in gov't would go away. If there's no power to grab, special interests can't grab it! The federal gov't should be limited to the least amount of power it needs to perform its legitimate duties as outlined in the Constitution.
Who decides the "basic requirements"? The incumbents. That's exactly the same problem we have now. The RepuboDems control the election laws. Who pays for the free airtime? TV/radio stations are businesses, and they deserve to get paid. The gov't should pay for it, you say? No, thanks! I don't want any portion of my money (taxes) used to support the candidates I oppose! Where's the freedom there? I should be able to support (financially or any other way) the candidate I like, and not compelled to support the ones I don't! I want liberty of conscience!
So it's illegal for me to express my opinion? That's what I do when I support a candidate, by speaking on his behalf or contributing financially. I'm glad I don't live in your world.
Spending caps are wrong on principle. Maybe they are not a panacea...but I'll oppose them just the same. I should have the freedom to support whom I choose, and oppose whom I choose, with no interference from gov't whatsoever! And check out my previous post...repeal the 17th Amendment and you'll get senators that are less reliant on big corporate bribes because they won't be popularly elected (and thus in need of big campaign budgets).
I believe it is your solutions that won't fix the problems.