No, capitalism does not. Capitalism tends to those things. Systems, such as those in most modern advanced mixed economies, put into place to forbid monopolies and collusions were put into place by governments responding to popular anger at the effects of capitalism.
Capitalism is not defined as "using the power of government to expand and enforce profitability."
The people -- who were, after all, largely socialist critics of systems then in practice -- who coined the term used it to refer to a specific method of doing exactly that.
as capitalism is all about the respect of *every individual's* economic rights
Capitalism is about selectively defining what is and is not an "economic right" to serve particular interests.
This mis-interpretation is pretty much exactly how that clause has made the Constitution completely meaningless.
It was a harmless little addendum that pretty much everyone considered perfectly safe. The point was to keep trade "regular" among the States. So that, for example, Virginia isn't allowed to attach extra tariffs to goods passing through from New York.
No, that's covered by a separate provision of Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
The Commerce Clause was not intended to be a superfluous redundancy, it was, in fact, intended to give Congress a general power to regulate interstate and international trade beyond simply prohibiting states from imposing tariffs and the like.
There are certainly things that have been attempted to be justified with it that have little nexus with interstate or international commerce (some of which have been struck down on that basis), and certainly there may be arguments that--Constitutional or not--some uses of it have been undesirable, but that's a different issue.
The other day, Lieberman (who is looooong past his expiration date as a politician. Let's get with the program, Connecticut) was mouthing off on Fox News about how the New York Times should be investigated for espionage for cooperating with Wikileaks and publishing the cables. It's like, has he really never heard of New York Times v United States [wikipedia.org]?
One might note that NY Times v. United States only invalidated the injunction preventing the publication on prior restraint grounds, it explicitly allowed the government to prosecute those involved for publishing. And, in fact, the government did prosecute them (the prosecution was thrown out due to actions of the government that were tangential to the charges, including illegally wiretaps for which they then claimed to have lost the tapes.)
Since the government did not, in this case, seek an injunction imposing prior restraint on publication of the information, the applicability of NY Times v. U.S. would seem to be remote at best.
I bet you are wrong about that for most consumers. From what I understand, many channels may not cost much, but there are a few that cost a lot (like ESPN which I care nothing about)
The ones that cost a cable company a lot to get are the ones where the market will bear a high cost -- that is, where having or not having the channel makes a substantial difference in marketing cable service as a whole. These are precisely the channels that, in an a-la-carte system, the most subscribers would be buying.
Yeah, some people -- particularly, people with esoteric tastes that don't like popular channels -- will save money. But on average, a-la-carte will mean higher prices (from higher costs), with the less flexibility.
We wouldn't need so much protection by the government if we were allowed to protect ourselves.
The thing is, before organized governments, and in areas without effective governments, that's generally the case (self-protection was allowed not just in the form of proximate self-defense, where it remains allowed in, e.g., the modern US, but also in retaliatory or pre-emptive action against those who had caused harm or who showed signs they might do so), and as it turns out, while it requires less self-protection against government, it doesn't actually lead to results that most people approve of, which is why in antiquity concepts of law like the lex talionis (the "law of retaliation" of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth") appeared, not to mandate harsh punishments (as it might seem to a modern eye unfamiliar with the context), but to dictate limits on punishments and to assign the judgement of retaliation to social magistrates rather than involved individuals.
Some people use computer keyboards for actual writing of the English language and, in the case of acronyms, could really use that caps-lock key.
As someone who uses a computer keyboard for acronym-heavy writing in the English language more than I would like, I'd have to say that for acronyms (or single-word all caps), Shift is far superior to Caps Lock, but, in any cases, its irrelevant, since Google Chrome OS still has the key traditionally used for Caps Lock in its normal position and, even though the default function under Chrome OS is as a Search hotkey, there is an easy to access setting to change it to Caps Lock if that's what you need.
This is all a bunch of whining (or, in some cases, cheering) over something that is completely misrepresented in TFA.
Where I live the firefighters are all volunteers working with equipment that was purchased with donations.
Including the real estate on which the fire department facilities are located and the infrastructure they use to transport the equipment from their to your home?
...if the telecoms also give me pay-as-i-go cable TV plans. Why haven't they caught up with customer demand? Just let me pick which channels I want to watch and pay less for only those channels instead paying a premium for a bunch of channels I wont watch.
The actual marginal cost for the individual channels is small, most of the cost to the cable company is the fixed cost for the connection. So, when you do get either pay-as-you-go (which would be everything is pay-per-view), or a-la-carte (pay per channel) cable pricing, expect the basic connection fee to be most of the cost of the lowest existing cable package, while at the most common level of viewing, the total charge is a little bit higher (to account for the higher cost associated with the more flexible billing) than the average current cost, with less cost-free flexibility (on a pay-go plan, you can't watch more quantity without more cost; on an a-la-carte plan you don't have access to check out a show you've heard about on a new channel.)
There has been building pressure for it, so I'm sure that one of these options will be mandated, but when it is, I bet the people who cried out for it are going to wish they hadn't.
For modern web-based applications, you are correct that there is little or no reason for the Caps Lock key.
But for the MILLIONS of people whose job requires them to use antiquated legacy systems, it is often essential.
That's probably why ChromeOS, while switching the default use of the key to be a Search hotkey that Google expects will be more useful than Caps Lock to most Chrome OS users, has simple setting in the Settings menu that changes the function of the key in the traditional Caps Lock position from "Search" to "Caps Lock".
Thus neatly addressing the needs of those people who, in general or even just for a period of time, really need a Caps Lock key.
I don't have a need for a CapsLock. And if I (in my geeky prowess) can't think of any reason that someone would want one, there can't possibly be a legitimate need for one. Get rid of it now!
You know, if they took away the key or the functionality rather than just changing the default functionality of the key to something they expect to be more commonly used on Chrome OS than Caps Lock with an easy option to change it back for those who needs Caps Lock, you might have a point.
It appears to me that it's very likely that the reason for omitting caps-lock is just to save space
That seems unlikely, since the key is still there.
I suspect that the reason they have set the default function of the key to be "Search" is that they believe the bulk of Chrome OS users will be better served a Search hotkey than by a rarely-used Caps Lock key, and that those for whom Caps Lock is needed will take advantage of the convenient option in the Settings menu to switch the function of the key to "Caps Lock".
While it's true that they have removed the caps lock key, they still have a caps lock indicator and presumably caps lock in some form, possibly long pressing shift or something like that.
Well, its true that they have removed the caps lock key, except for the fact that its completely false and the key is still there. Its default function and labelling have been changed, though there is a setting on the Settings menu to switch the function to "Caps Lock" instead of "Search".
And we can all safely assume none of those will be using a new laptop designed to be used on a pilot program to test a new operating system, or not?
Even if they do, I suspect that the fact that the new operating systems includes a simple option in the Settings menu to configure the Search key back to function as a Caps Lock key will deal with any difficulties quite well.
I don't have a problem with them taking away the functionality of the Caps Lock key, but I do have a problem if they take the actual physical key away.
They aren't taking away either the functionality or the key; the default functionality of the key under Chrome OS is as a search quick key, but a simple setting change makes it a Caps Lock key.
Including all Chrome OS netbooks, which support Caps Lock functionality, though the default setting is for the key in the position traditionally used for Caps Lock to serve as a Search quick key.
There is a simple setting, though, to change it to serve as a Caps Lock key.
So, not only do you have the choice to buy or not buy a Chrome OS netbook, if you do choose Chrome OS, you have the choice to have or not have a Caps Lock key.
I assume that any Google DBA's or SQL programmers that edit code using Chrome OS notebooks and need caps lock functionality more than they need a Search quick-key while doing so are expected to be competent enough to go to the Settings menu and select the appropriate option to set the function of the modifier key to Caps Lock instead of Search.
I code in a case sensitive language and use case to indicate different data types. This would be a huge pain!
It would be a huge pain to use the choice built into the OS by going to the settings menu and change the modifier key function to "Caps Lock" instead of "Search"?
I don't necessarily think they should take the option away.
They aren't taking the option away. They are setting the default function of the key to "Search" and providing a well-documented, simple settings option to change the function of the key between "Search" and "Caps Lock".
If you can't live without Caps Lock, you can keep the key function set to that and just not have a quick-key for Search.
While I use acronyms a lot in my work, I rarely use Caps Lock since for one word at a time (even if it is every other word) its easier just to use Shift. But if you need Caps Lock functionality in Chrome OS, there is a setting to change the function of what Google calls the modifier key from Search to Caps Lock.
So there really is no story here. Google just figures most Chrome OS users are going to use Search more often than Caps Lock.
They are going to eliminate the Caps Lock key from all the notebooks made for that operating system. Why? Because they know better and we are all idiots.
The Chrome notebooks have a search key in the spot in which Caps Lock traditionally resides, but include an option to switch the function to Caps Lock instead of search. (source (also links to and has shot from Google's Chrome OS introduction.)
He's not going to jail for 50 years. Journalists love to quote maximum jail sentences even though it's rare the maximum sentence is ever dealt.
This is especially true with federal cases, where there are seperate explicit sentencing guidelines which work out so that, particularly with multiple charged counts, adding up the maximum available sentence for each offense is often vastly more than the sentence that would be justified taking the charged facts at face value with the sentencing guidelines applied.
I don't understand why Google is partnering with device manufacturers instead of just letting this into the wild for everyone...
Google is partnering with device manufacturers because they'd rather not restrict the Chrome OS market to the small slice of people that would replace the OS bundled with their hardware with something else, and because they'd like casual users to have the experience provided by the OS running on hardware designed for Chrome OS rather than tailored for use with some other OS.
Of course, Chromium OS remains open source and freely available, and if people want to build it and install it on their own hardware, Google will let them do that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, capitalism does not. Capitalism tends to those things. Systems, such as those in most modern advanced mixed economies, put into place to forbid monopolies and collusions were put into place by governments responding to popular anger at the effects of capitalism.
No, that's covered by a separate provision of Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
The Commerce Clause was not intended to be a superfluous redundancy, it was, in fact, intended to give Congress a general power to regulate interstate and international trade beyond simply prohibiting states from imposing tariffs and the like.
There are certainly things that have been attempted to be justified with it that have little nexus with interstate or international commerce (some of which have been struck down on that basis), and certainly there may be arguments that--Constitutional or not--some uses of it have been undesirable, but that's a different issue.
One might note that NY Times v. United States only invalidated the injunction preventing the publication on prior restraint grounds, it explicitly allowed the government to prosecute those involved for publishing. And, in fact, the government did prosecute them (the prosecution was thrown out due to actions of the government that were tangential to the charges, including illegally wiretaps for which they then claimed to have lost the tapes.)
Since the government did not, in this case, seek an injunction imposing prior restraint on publication of the information, the applicability of NY Times v. U.S. would seem to be remote at best.
The ones that cost a cable company a lot to get are the ones where the market will bear a high cost -- that is, where having or not having the channel makes a substantial difference in marketing cable service as a whole. These are precisely the channels that, in an a-la-carte system, the most subscribers would be buying.
Yeah, some people -- particularly, people with esoteric tastes that don't like popular channels -- will save money. But on average, a-la-carte will mean higher prices (from higher costs), with the less flexibility.
The thing is, before organized governments, and in areas without effective governments, that's generally the case (self-protection was allowed not just in the form of proximate self-defense, where it remains allowed in, e.g., the modern US, but also in retaliatory or pre-emptive action against those who had caused harm or who showed signs they might do so), and as it turns out, while it requires less self-protection against government, it doesn't actually lead to results that most people approve of, which is why in antiquity concepts of law like the lex talionis (the "law of retaliation" of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth") appeared, not to mandate harsh punishments (as it might seem to a modern eye unfamiliar with the context), but to dictate limits on punishments and to assign the judgement of retaliation to social magistrates rather than involved individuals.
As someone who uses a computer keyboard for acronym-heavy writing in the English language more than I would like, I'd have to say that for acronyms (or single-word all caps), Shift is far superior to Caps Lock, but, in any cases, its irrelevant, since Google Chrome OS still has the key traditionally used for Caps Lock in its normal position and, even though the default function under Chrome OS is as a Search hotkey, there is an easy to access setting to change it to Caps Lock if that's what you need.
This is all a bunch of whining (or, in some cases, cheering) over something that is completely misrepresented in TFA.
Including the real estate on which the fire department facilities are located and the infrastructure they use to transport the equipment from their to your home?
You'll take metered internet (or not internet at all) when the providers serving your area decide that's the only thing they want to offer.
The actual marginal cost for the individual channels is small, most of the cost to the cable company is the fixed cost for the connection. So, when you do get either pay-as-you-go (which would be everything is pay-per-view), or a-la-carte (pay per channel) cable pricing, expect the basic connection fee to be most of the cost of the lowest existing cable package, while at the most common level of viewing, the total charge is a little bit higher (to account for the higher cost associated with the more flexible billing) than the average current cost, with less cost-free flexibility (on a pay-go plan, you can't watch more quantity without more cost; on an a-la-carte plan you don't have access to check out a show you've heard about on a new channel.)
There has been building pressure for it, so I'm sure that one of these options will be mandated, but when it is, I bet the people who cried out for it are going to wish they hadn't.
For modern web-based applications, you are correct that there is little or no reason for the Caps Lock key.
But for the MILLIONS of people whose job requires them to use antiquated legacy systems, it is often essential.
That's probably why ChromeOS, while switching the default use of the key to be a Search hotkey that Google expects will be more useful than Caps Lock to most Chrome OS users, has simple setting in the Settings menu that changes the function of the key in the traditional Caps Lock position from "Search" to "Caps Lock".
Thus neatly addressing the needs of those people who, in general or even just for a period of time, really need a Caps Lock key.
You know, if they took away the key or the functionality rather than just changing the default functionality of the key to something they expect to be more commonly used on Chrome OS than Caps Lock with an easy option to change it back for those who needs Caps Lock, you might have a point.
That seems unlikely, since the key is still there.
I suspect that the reason they have set the default function of the key to be "Search" is that they believe the bulk of Chrome OS users will be better served a Search hotkey than by a rarely-used Caps Lock key, and that those for whom Caps Lock is needed will take advantage of the convenient option in the Settings menu to switch the function of the key to "Caps Lock".
Well, its true that they have removed the caps lock key, except for the fact that its completely false and the key is still there. Its default function and labelling have been changed, though there is a setting on the Settings menu to switch the function to "Caps Lock" instead of "Search".
Even if they do, I suspect that the fact that the new operating systems includes a simple option in the Settings menu to configure the Search key back to function as a Caps Lock key will deal with any difficulties quite well.
They aren't taking away either the functionality or the key; the default functionality of the key under Chrome OS is as a search quick key, but a simple setting change makes it a Caps Lock key.
Including all Chrome OS netbooks, which support Caps Lock functionality, though the default setting is for the key in the position traditionally used for Caps Lock to serve as a Search quick key.
There is a simple setting, though, to change it to serve as a Caps Lock key.
So, not only do you have the choice to buy or not buy a Chrome OS netbook, if you do choose Chrome OS, you have the choice to have or not have a Caps Lock key.
I assume that any Google DBA's or SQL programmers that edit code using Chrome OS notebooks and need caps lock functionality more than they need a Search quick-key while doing so are expected to be competent enough to go to the Settings menu and select the appropriate option to set the function of the modifier key to Caps Lock instead of Search.
It would be a huge pain to use the choice built into the OS by going to the settings menu and change the modifier key function to "Caps Lock" instead of "Search"?
Oh noes!
They aren't taking the option away. They are setting the default function of the key to "Search" and providing a well-documented, simple settings option to change the function of the key between "Search" and "Caps Lock".
If you can't live without Caps Lock, you can keep the key function set to that and just not have a quick-key for Search.
While I use acronyms a lot in my work, I rarely use Caps Lock since for one word at a time (even if it is every other word) its easier just to use Shift. But if you need Caps Lock functionality in Chrome OS, there is a setting to change the function of what Google calls the modifier key from Search to Caps Lock.
So there really is no story here. Google just figures most Chrome OS users are going to use Search more often than Caps Lock.
The Chrome notebooks have a search key in the spot in which Caps Lock traditionally resides, but include an option to switch the function to Caps Lock instead of search. (source (also links to and has shot from Google's Chrome OS introduction.)
This is especially true with federal cases, where there are seperate explicit sentencing guidelines which work out so that, particularly with multiple charged counts, adding up the maximum available sentence for each offense is often vastly more than the sentence that would be justified taking the charged facts at face value with the sentencing guidelines applied.
To be fair, companies like HP have no problem spying on their boards of directors, either.
Google is partnering with device manufacturers because they'd rather not restrict the Chrome OS market to the small slice of people that would replace the OS bundled with their hardware with something else, and because they'd like casual users to have the experience provided by the OS running on hardware designed for Chrome OS rather than tailored for use with some other OS.
Of course, Chromium OS remains open source and freely available, and if people want to build it and install it on their own hardware, Google will let them do that.