Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1633

It's not a "re-examination". It's a butchering.

You say that like it's necessarily a bad thing.

We've got to stop acting as if the Founding Fathers were like Moses descending from Mount Sinai with the Constitution chiseled on a couple of stone tablets. They were brilliant, enlightened men for their day, but the Constitution is not a document of divine inerrancy.

The US Constitution is the COBOL of constitutions. Yes, it was a tremendous intellectual innovation for its time. Yes, it is still being used successfully today. But nobody *today* would write a constitution that way, *even if their intent was exactly the same* as the founders.

For one thing it's full of confusingly pointless ("To promote the Progress of Science") and hoplessly vague ("securing for *limited times*") phraseology that leaves courts wondering exactly what the framers meant, or whether they were just pointlessly editorializing ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State").

It's also helplessly out of date. The Constitution was drafted before the existence of mass media and advertising; before photography even. It was the appearance of photography in newspapers that woke people up to the idea that they might have privacy rights that were being threatened. A Constitution written in 1900 would almost certainly have clauses explicitly recognizing a right to individual privacy and empowering the government to protect that right. A Constitution written in 2000 would almost certainly have clauses restricting the government from violating individual privacy.

And then there is slavery, an outright *evil* which is enshrined in the founder's version of the Constitution. That alone should disqualify any claim they may have had to superhuman morality.

So if we take it as given that the US Constitution is not divinely ordained, it's not necessarily a bad thing that the current generation should choose to butcher what the founders established. Would you re-institute slavery? Allow *states* to deprive citizens of liberty and property without due process? Eliminate direct election of senators?

So it's perfectly reasonable to butcher anything in the Constitution when you're proposing an *amendment* to the Constitution. That's the whole point. We should think for ourselves. In doing so, we're actually carrying on the work the framers themselves were doing. Every generation should learn from its predecessors, but think for itself.

Comment Re:Hypocrisy abounds (Score 1) 818

What's so hilarious is that to most of the commenters here, the Koch Brothers exemplify the absolute evil in the system whilst (and simultaneously) George Soros is merely 'doing the right thing' and 'helping people speak truth to power'.

So in other words, what somebody says is less important than who says it.

Comment Re:Tyrant: The computer game (Score 1) 818

While sorta fun, those games are not simulations. All you revealed was the program(mer)'s built-in biases and assumptions, rather than any insight about what happens in reality.

That's true of social science research as well. The difference is that social science research has to pass peer review, and stand up to contrary reearch in the literature.

Comment Re:A reason why they SHOULD have... (Score 1) 43

I actually picked up FOUR 7" Android 4.x tablets from DealExtreme for ~$35 each last year, during a half-price sale...and I doubt they'd let even such a sale as that rob them entirely of profits...

Dealextreme is like BG Micro. Sure, they buy stuff to stock and sell, but much of what they sell is some crap that someone else couldn't sell, which they got for a song. Just because DX got a bunch of tablets nobody wanted to buy in a store for $20/piece doesn't mean someone will sell you new, supported ones for that.

Comment Re:Mr Fixit (Score 1) 582

We should remember that FLOSS reacted very quickly to the "revelation," but the bug itself has been sitting there for years, which isn't really supposed to happen.

Unfortunately, the very same thing happens in proprietary software. And "isn't supposed to happen" is a misunderstanding. It's just supposed to happen less, and it's supposed to get fixed easier. The latter, at least, has been proven out.

Comment Re:not at those prices, it won't fly off the shelv (Score 1) 194

like the other poster said, all I want in there is an amp and speakers with a jack for audio input

That's what I put in my truck. You can't listen to optical media in it unless you have a heavy load, because the suspension is too hard. So I have a $20 amplifier with stereo in and four outputs.

I'd like my 1964 Dodge back. fixable, the controls fall where your hands are, no menus, and no nonsense.

Yes, if I had perfect foresight instead of excellent hindsight, I'd have kept my 1960 Dodge. It got over 20 mpg on the freeway and it was stupid simple. But I didn't know how to rebuild a brake system then (dirt simple, as it turns out) and so I couldn't afford to keep it.

Comment Re:Why spend another $700 for a car stereo (Score 1) 194

It's more reliable. Bluetooth Audio is miserably finicky. The only thing that ever worked right with my JVC was AT&T Fuze. With a couple different Android devices now including the Nexus 4 I get occasional skips. I used to use an Xperia Play, that skipped a lot. Flawless using the headphone cable in my truck instead.

I'm going to try adding bluetooth to my car anyway, switching into the line inputs from the changer with an audio signal relay, and using an ultra-cheap receiver. but i'm also going to have line in, just in case.

Comment Re:A win? (Score 1) 328

Incoming water is also charged a sewer fee, essentially doubling the cost. I can put a separate meter on my outside nozzle so that when I fill the pool, wash the car or water the garden, I'm not also being billed for the (not directly used) sewer fee.

Just wait, the city will start to tax you for evaporation for water released into the outside world...

Comment Re:And they've already stopped (Score 1) 632

The big story up here in Canada last year was the IRS going after dual-citizens who'd not filed their incomes with the US ... because apparently they had to even though they didn't owe any taxes down there.

It's not just the country, it's the states, too. I moved to Texas for a while, and California had enough information to know this. You're not required to file if you don't owe, but they decided to tax me for my Texan income and then I did owe according to them, and then they came after me for back taxes of thousands when they actually owed me over a hundred bucks.

Corruption weakens governments. We're ripe for plucking.

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Working...