Be that as it may, "the people" is never used in the bill of rights to refer to citizens collectively.
That is a fairly blatant example of "begging the question", regardless of its accuracy elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
More importantly, even if it is interpreted as an individual right, it still is only a limit on the power of the federal government to infringe the right, unless its incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment's due process clause; ironically, the same people that are most likely to argue that the 14th Amendment should not be read to apply the full force of the first amendment (particularly the religion clauses), or the fourth through seventh amendments (except the takings clause of the 5th) are also the most likely to argue that the 2nd Amendment and the Takings Clause of the 5th create individual rights that must be enforced against the states.
The majority in Dred Scott knew this, which is why they said it was unthinkable that blacks could be citizens because then they could "keep and carry arms wherever they went."
I think you need to read what leads up to that; since they are referring to the treatment under colonial and state law in the 13 original states to prove that at the time the Constitution was framed, it could not have been intended that blacks would be citizens, it is fairly clear that they aren't referring to the applicability of the federal RKBA under the 2nd Amendment, but rather state-law rights existing in the 13 original states that provided citizens with similar rights, to show that the states forming the US could not have intended that blacks could be citizens because very many of the states (particularly the slave states) could not have intended to be obligated to submit to giving black citizens of other states they same rights as they provided, under state Constitution and laws, to their own white citizens through the action of the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 ("The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.")
The gov abandoned the idea of a state regulated militia in favor of a federally regulated national guard.
False; Congress power to provide the direct the regulation, equipment, etc. of the militia is found in the same place as it is reserved to the states to appoint officers of the militia and to actually carry out its training when not called into federal service, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power....[t]o 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;
Congress exercising that express Constitutional power by providing for the organization, equipment, and discipline of the organized militia along lines paralleling that of the regular federal military when it created the National Guard surrendered nothing of the Constitutional division.
This is not the first case concerning the scope of the Second Amendment in 70 years; such cases are rather frequent. As TFA notes if the case were somehow to reach the Supreme Court, it would be the first case on that question to reach the Supreme Court in 70 years, but the reason such cases haven't reached the Supreme Court isn't that there haven't been plenty of cases in the federal courts, but rather that (despite a split of authorities between the federal circuit courts) the Supreme Court has consistently declined to hear appeals of such cases. As is noted further in TFA, the Supreme Court has refused to take prominent challenges on the question as recently as 2003, considerably less than 70 years ago.
The summary(and to a lesser extent TFA) also gives the misleading impression that the individual rights approach is the settled interpretation and that the District of Columbia is challenging that by asserting it as a state right; that is inaccurate. The Supreme Court precedent is not very clear*, and the federal circuit courts are split with more following the state right approach rather than the individual right approach.
*Though it arguably leans toward either a state-right approach or a fairly narrowly-purposed individual-right approach, consider US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- '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.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
I think I was unclear. I think in this case its pretty clear there is a problem, I was just noting an objection to taking the "if the kids are asking you to come to dinner, rather than the other way around, there is a problem" as true more generally.
For starters, it defines syntax for spreadsheet formulas...
And see that is a valid and useful-to-know difference.
(and once you realize that something that basic is missing from the ODF specification, you should start to understand the large disparity between the sizes of the specifications).
Certainly, things like that could explain the difference (not that I'm so sure that should be considered unqualifiedly in OpenXML's favor; while "standardize everything initially" has a certain appeal, a standard that specifies too much before there are multiple implementations and use cases considered and tried risks becoming stifling rather than enabling.)
It may be weird to you or I, but Hollywood does it that way because that's how your "average joe" sees it.
No, Hollywood does it that way because it servese the interests of the plot and cinematic pacing without conflicting so much with people's experience that it breaks suspension of disbelief, not because it accurately reflects the "average joe" impression of computers.
(Note, this also applies to general Hollywood portrayal of basically everything: physics, police procedure, military tactics, whatever.)
Computer+Internet can do a lot, but maybe one PC per 10 child - located in school?
One major purpose is to simplify delivery of educational content: one laptop per 10 children located in the school doesn't reduce the need for physical books and consumable school supplies.
Why do we think 1 PC/child is a necessary?
OLPC and the countries buying them think that its necessary for the same reason that children need their own pencils, paper, and, ideally (though this can be a problem in poor areas now!) textbooks.
Also, is there sufficient content on the internet/offline in their child own language?
Part of the project is working to make that content available. Of course, the countries buying it will probably also have to do some of the lifting on developing content, but since in many cases it will be content that would otherwise be developed and delivered in hard copy, that's not a completely new burden.
OLPC hasn't done anything other than make a toy for Kofi Annan to break. Now is exactly the time to argue against it before it becomes an enormous waste of resources.
Its not a waste of the resources of people whose governments aren't buying them, and who aren't personally donating to the project, and yet, strangely, those people seem to be the main people complaining.
I think that's great, but I don't believe they, or any one organization has the resources to assess and meet application needs of users.
Which users? I think they (and lots of other organizations) can meet the needs of assembling software suites to meet the core needs of large purchasers buying them for a specific purpose. They educational tools. Sure, they are general purpose computers by nature, but they are being marketed and sold for a specific purpose, with appropriate application stacks.
(Of course, 128Mb of RAM and 512MB of persistent storage may be substandard by today's standards, but there are vast amount of open source software that were developed for machines with specs like that [or less] which is still available, and that will likely build and run on the machine.)
If there are answers beyond what you posted above, I would love to see the link.
Have you looked at the OLPC wiki software section?
I don't know one way or another whether they can provide $100 laptops to children in third world slums
They (OLPC) can't, nor do they plan to. They plan to provide laptops in bulk to national ministries of education. Those are the ones responsible for distributing them to actual children.
Frankly, I still don't entirely understand why there is such a huge push to distribute laptops to the world. Books are far more durable and require no training or infrastructure (though teachers help).
Actually, books do require infrastructure to deliver, and they do require training to use; literacy doesn't just happen on its own.
Now, admittedly, the laptops require more training, but it may require less logistical burden to deliver content to the laptops, plus new laptops as needed, rather than keep delivering updated books and the related consumables that the laptop should reduce the need for.
And then there's medicine and other necessities.
The national ministries of education that will be buying the laptops would normally not be buying medicine and that kind of necessities. There are lots of things national governments provide, and governments that are at the point that there needs for medicine or food would prohibit any substantial spending on education are not the direct targets of this program. Countries that would find computers useful as part (not "a replacement for) their education spending are the market for the OLPC. (Though those that wouldn't buy it themselves may be an indirect market, as Libya, for instance, is reported to be looking into buying them for poorer African nations.)
Considering it has a unique UI, customized OS, unique networking, unusual capacity (memory and storage), and more I'm sure, I'm wondering where users will find compatible applications?
Part of the project is "developing" apps (I'm using that term broadly, to include locating and verifying the functioning of existing open source products), fonts for national languages that aren't currently well supported, open educational content, etc., to accompany the machines. Its not simply a hardware project.
I've posted this question to previous OLPC stories, but nobody has really answered it: Where are the applications for this platform?
Strangely, this has been answered (whether you or someone else asked it) in virtually every thread on the OLPC I've seen.
The funny thing is the estimate notes the exist agreement by SES to provide free bandwidth and to develop and downlink station for rural villages expected to keep costs at about $1/laptop/year for internet access but assumes that SES will abandon the deal after the first year. No substantial basis is given for this assumption.
Jon Camfield says...once maintenance, training, Internet connectivity, and other factors are taken into account, the actual cost of each laptop rises to more than $970.
Perhaps; beyond quibbling with the numbers (and the fact that the OLPC is designed to be useful without regular internet connectivity), so what? If you add those other things on to the cost of a $1,000 laptop, the price goes up substantially, too.
"The price of X + some other stuff is greater than the price of X" is hardly surprising.
Another obstacle, though, is that without adequate funding, it would be impossible to run the necessary safety and emissions tests on the open source car that would be necessary to make it road-legal.
This is clearly a practical limitation to the utility of such an approach, to be sure, though an "open-source" kit-built car (a little bit more work to "install" than configure, make, make install!) might get around some of that.
Re:That's why they call it the Crackberry.
on
The BlackBerry Orphans
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I actually had a boss who told me that I didn't love the company if I pursued a personal life during my off hours.
I actually had a boss who told employees that, since we were in salaried, exempt positions, we didn't actually have "off hours", just time that we happened to be away from the office.
If a family member gets upset you can always talk to them later that day. If an important client gets upset you could lose business deals and contracts worth millions of dollars.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
Naturally. Fallibility is not an excuse for abdicating responsibility.
You being in a privileged position doesn't stop you from being a jerk,
Clearly. Agreeing to "rules" from your teenage children and then sneaking around evading them rather than dealing with the issue maturely is, I would argue, a form of "being a jerk" as well as an abdication of parental responsibility.
and if it gets to the point that it's the kids trying to get you to come to dinner and not the other way, then it's pretty obvious you're doing something wrong.
I disagree that that is clearly the case, though from the description here I'd say that (aside from the abdication of responsibility in the response) the Blackberry use is probably a problem in and of itself; legitimate supervening parental responsibilities can trump family meals, quite legitimately, though.
I think that's rubbish, there's no way a kid under the age of 15 would spot the danger of talking on a cellphone while driving unless it was explained to him/her by their parents
Yeah, because teenagers have no source of information other than their parents.
No, no emails are important enough to look at en route.
The only email that might be worth reading en route is one that has a substantial relationship to a literal issue of imminent life-or-death. But its not worth checking to see if an email might be in that category en route, unless you are nearly certain that you wouldn't get any other email coming in at the time.
Like teenagers sneaking cigarettes behind school, parents are secretly rebelling against the rules. The children of one New Jersey executive mandate that their mom ignore her mobile email from dinnertime until their bedtime. To get around their dictates, the mother hides the gadget in the bathroom, where she makes frequent trips before, during and after dinner.
Huh? The interesting thing isn't about technology, its about parenting styles. When I was a teenager, if I tried to impose rules like this on my parents (regardless of the technology involved), they'd tell me that I could make the rules when I was working and paying the bills and they were living off me.
They'd usually accompany it with discussion of the issue and why they needed or wanted to do whatever it was I wanted them not to do, and might try to find some way to address the issue I was having that made me want to impose the rule. Or they might not. Depending on the circumstances.
But they wouldn't let me pretend I was running the family, and then sneak around to evade my "rules". And, IMO, that's a good thing.
"Avoiding conflict" is not the same as "parenting".
Slashdot Mirror
That is a fairly blatant example of "begging the question", regardless of its accuracy elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
More importantly, even if it is interpreted as an individual right, it still is only a limit on the power of the federal government to infringe the right, unless its incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment's due process clause; ironically, the same people that are most likely to argue that the 14th Amendment should not be read to apply the full force of the first amendment (particularly the religion clauses), or the fourth through seventh amendments (except the takings clause of the 5th) are also the most likely to argue that the 2nd Amendment and the Takings Clause of the 5th create individual rights that must be enforced against the states.
I think you need to read what leads up to that; since they are referring to the treatment under colonial and state law in the 13 original states to prove that at the time the Constitution was framed, it could not have been intended that blacks would be citizens, it is fairly clear that they aren't referring to the applicability of the federal RKBA under the 2nd Amendment, but rather state-law rights existing in the 13 original states that provided citizens with similar rights, to show that the states forming the US could not have intended that blacks could be citizens because very many of the states (particularly the slave states) could not have intended to be obligated to submit to giving black citizens of other states they same rights as they provided, under state Constitution and laws, to their own white citizens through the action of the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 ("The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.")
False; Congress power to provide the direct the regulation, equipment, etc. of the militia is found in the same place as it is reserved to the states to appoint officers of the militia and to actually carry out its training when not called into federal service, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Congress exercising that express Constitutional power by providing for the organization, equipment, and discipline of the organized militia along lines paralleling that of the regular federal military when it created the National Guard surrendered nothing of the Constitutional division.
The summary(and to a lesser extent TFA) also gives the misleading impression that the individual rights approach is the settled interpretation and that the District of Columbia is challenging that by asserting it as a state right; that is inaccurate. The Supreme Court precedent is not very clear*, and the federal circuit courts are split with more following the state right approach rather than the individual right approach.
*Though it arguably leans toward either a state-right approach or a fairly narrowly-purposed individual-right approach, consider US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):
I think I was unclear. I think in this case its pretty clear there is a problem, I was just noting an objection to taking the "if the kids are asking you to come to dinner, rather than the other way around, there is a problem" as true more generally.
No, Hollywood does it that way because it servese the interests of the plot and cinematic pacing without conflicting so much with people's experience that it breaks suspension of disbelief, not because it accurately reflects the "average joe" impression of computers.
(Note, this also applies to general Hollywood portrayal of basically everything: physics, police procedure, military tactics, whatever.)
Its not a waste of the resources of people whose governments aren't buying them, and who aren't personally donating to the project, and yet, strangely, those people seem to be the main people complaining.
Er, no, they aren't. But thanks for waving your ignorance around.
They (OLPC) can't, nor do they plan to. They plan to provide laptops in bulk to national ministries of education. Those are the ones responsible for distributing them to actual children.
Actually, books do require infrastructure to deliver, and they do require training to use; literacy doesn't just happen on its own.
Now, admittedly, the laptops require more training, but it may require less logistical burden to deliver content to the laptops, plus new laptops as needed, rather than keep delivering updated books and the related consumables that the laptop should reduce the need for.
The national ministries of education that will be buying the laptops would normally not be buying medicine and that kind of necessities. There are lots of things national governments provide, and governments that are at the point that there needs for medicine or food would prohibit any substantial spending on education are not the direct targets of this program. Countries that would find computers useful as part (not "a replacement for) their education spending are the market for the OLPC. (Though those that wouldn't buy it themselves may be an indirect market, as Libya, for instance, is reported to be looking into buying them for poorer African nations.)
Part of the project is "developing" apps (I'm using that term broadly, to include locating and verifying the functioning of existing open source products), fonts for national languages that aren't currently well supported, open educational content, etc., to accompany the machines. Its not simply a hardware project.
Strangely, this has been answered (whether you or someone else asked it) in virtually every thread on the OLPC I've seen.
The funny thing is the estimate notes the exist agreement by SES to provide free bandwidth and to develop and downlink station for rural villages expected to keep costs at about $1/laptop/year for internet access but assumes that SES will abandon the deal after the first year. No substantial basis is given for this assumption.
This is clearly a practical limitation to the utility of such an approach, to be sure, though an "open-source" kit-built car (a little bit more work to "install" than configure, make, make install!) might get around some of that.
I actually had a boss who told employees that, since we were in salaried, exempt positions, we didn't actually have "off hours", just time that we happened to be away from the office.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
Money is means. Family is ends. Means serve ends.
Naturally. Fallibility is not an excuse for abdicating responsibility.
Clearly. Agreeing to "rules" from your teenage children and then sneaking around evading them rather than dealing with the issue maturely is, I would argue, a form of "being a jerk" as well as an abdication of parental responsibility.
I disagree that that is clearly the case, though from the description here I'd say that (aside from the abdication of responsibility in the response) the Blackberry use is probably a problem in and of itself; legitimate supervening parental responsibilities can trump family meals, quite legitimately, though.
I don't know about recompiling, but rebuilding (engines, at least) isn't that uncommon...
Yeah, because teenagers have no source of information other than their parents.
Huh? The interesting thing isn't about technology, its about parenting styles. When I was a teenager, if I tried to impose rules like this on my parents (regardless of the technology involved), they'd tell me that I could make the rules when I was working and paying the bills and they were living off me.
They'd usually accompany it with discussion of the issue and why they needed or wanted to do whatever it was I wanted them not to do, and might try to find some way to address the issue I was having that made me want to impose the rule. Or they might not. Depending on the circumstances.
But they wouldn't let me pretend I was running the family, and then sneak around to evade my "rules". And, IMO, that's a good thing.
"Avoiding conflict" is not the same as "parenting".