Too right, just like those newfangled "GUI desktops" and mousie-things, or those Aye-Phone thingamabobs. Who's gonna write software for these things? Real Developers (TM) only work on proven technologies where they can make money today.

</sarcasm>

OK, maybe you're right, but I would be less surprised if some form of VR/AR that nobody is quite predicting yet grows up to be a very desirable and commonly used interface to humans. Time will tell.

I think you misunderstand or mis-characterize my intent. Since the original intent of the Constitution includes the amendment process, it's plain that amendment is included in "originalism". My argument is with the great many people who "call" themselves originalists or some variation on that idea, and yet oppose any change not in alignment with their own personal interests on the grounds that it wasn't part of the original intent - which included change. Indeed, the interpretations of "original intent" can vary widely in some areas. To finish my thoughts on that topic, I further don't believe that someone is an originalist just because they call themselves that. I think that most people will grab onto any argument that supports them getting what they want.

(Also, don't expect flawless logic in off-hand slashdot discussions. We're chatting here, not formulating formal formulae.)

I oppose many things Trump has done - that I've heard of - not because it reminds me of Hitler, but because I think he's wrong. I'm sure he's done some innocuous business that incited no remark or concern, as well as being an utter ass-clown most days so far. The fact that his behavior is emotionally disturbing due to some similarities with the German Nazis is merely a side note. I'm not out rioting, either, just expressing my opinions from the shabby safety of an anonymous website account.

Yep. Sounds a lot like Trump's verbally expressed wish list. I do not particularly fear that such will actually occur, not least because so many are so vocally opposing it, but also because we do have some checks and balances in place in the US. Thank the founders. As you go on to describe very well:

Thanks, I agree, and thank goodness. Also, please don't mistake me for an Obama apologist. I was quite disturbed by some of the actions of his administration.
Nonetheless, I see Trump seething and ranting at the Constitutional checks on his power, and expressing desires to overstep them. He will not be able to, but it still concerns me. The checks sometimes take time, and the damage done can be hard to undo.

Expressed desire to muzzle the press is a first easy target here. Not doable, but oft spoken.

True. Doesn't make it wrong, though. Also doesn't mean it's the basis of my opposition, just an observation.

Again - my position is not based on association. I am not about to waste days typing up my full thoughts on the matter. Someone else pointed out a disturbing similarity, and I said I can see why people think and feel that way.

You are entitled and indeed encouraged to express your thoughts, and I welcome them - thank you for your interesting engagement in this discussion, I'm enjoying it. I hope you'll feel the same.

So far, Mr. Trump has done nothing to earn my trust, and a great deal to discourage it. I'm glad you'll be on the side of law and order if actual malfeasance occurs. So far, I just see moral corruption, stupidity, and incompetence, and not anything that could justify more forceful opposition than words.

And don't expect logic. :) These are opinions, worth no more than anyone else's.

I hear you, but I think history provides ample proof that "feel" has always triumphed over facts when determining what most people will do. Such as voting for a con man, for example.

As for rioting to overturn an election, I'm not in favor of it, but it has worked in many places and times, to one degree or another. Usually resulting in more chaos and damage than just waiting for the next election, but see my statement above. *sigh*

And again, I have to object to calling people "left" or "right" as if these were monoliths. I don't think this mythical "left" has enough coherence to form any kind of unified revolt, or even unified demands. It's emotional reaction to perceived injustice. Same as the people on the other side, pointing fingers at them.

Unfortunately, for many people this seems entirely appropriate, especially those who fall into one of the many groups of people who feel threatened by Trump and his power base. And yes, I mean threatened like concentration camps and gas chambers. The first has happened in the USA before, and the jubilant hatred coming from many Trump supporters renders the second sadly believable.

History is the measuring stick, and while Trump doesn't yet measure up (down?) to Hitler, and hopefully never will, it is entirely appropriate to do the measuring and then speak and act to prevent bad things if possible.

No, it's like comparing the vile spew of Nazis to the vile spew of Trump and the even viler spew of many of his supporters, and finding them disturbingly similar, even though I agree the actions are orders of magnitude different so far.

The "right" has been dividing itself from the "left" and vice versa in the USA since long before the current political parties existed. Indeed, the political parties themselves have swapped sides, no doubt seeking greener pastures in their quest for power independent of any so-called values. I abhor such oversimplified labels as right and left, but those are your terms. Both major parties are coalitions of wildly disparate interest groups, banding together in the hope of gaining enough power to force their narrow goals on everyone, and if they have to go along with the [insert orthogonal interest] wackos, so be it.

Remind me who gets to decide what the original authors intended, without injecting any personal perspective.

Then explain to me why the original authors included an amendment process if they never intended anything to change and adapt with the times.

I am right royally sick of the idea that the US Constitution is scripture handed down verbatim by the almighty, never to be questioned or altered, especially by someone who has a different opinion. It is and was a compromise, a word apparently out of favor in these times.

For that matter, I am right royally sick of a Supreme Court that is utterly and absolutely partisan, such that the opinions of most justices can often be predicted before the cases are presented based entirely on the political positions of the presidents that appointed them. I don't trust any of them.

It is not necessary to attempt power expansion or attempt to make new law as a prerequisite for being wrong. One can also be stupid, bigoted, hypocritical, counter-productive, foolish, corrupt, immoral or many other ways of being wrong. I make no specific claims, just pointing out that Presidents can be bad without those two particular faults.

My choice is to avoid most news media internal to the US. That includes not only the corrupt propaganda organs driving the current president's agenda, but also their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum and the large profit driven media monsters in the middle. The majority of it is just noise anyway, and my experience with reporting on events where I was personally involved tells me that virtually every news story is one person's flawed perspective on events too complex to understand in the time allowed for a story deadline, and certainly too complex to fit within the word or time limit of the story itself. Those who rely on news reporters for their version of truth are making a mistake. So, on that we seem to agree.

On Trump and the emotions that drive him and his mouth foaming fans, I think we probably disagree. I can thoroughly despise him, his words, and his actions without being "partisan" at all. I think all the parties are at fault, and have been for decades at least. The will to power has long since eclipsed the will to govern wisely and benevolently.

Just brainstorming here, no way am I suggesting this is well-considered commentary.

Perhaps some form of distribution of necessity goods without the exchange of money would resolve some of the "unfairness" complaints about UBI.

Rent vouchers, water, basic groceries in some limited amount, some quantity of kWh of electric power, health care, public transport, basic utilities...

If these were free of financial cost to the consumer, the need for monetary income could be drastically reduced.

Thoughts?

Anonymous Coward: "Categorize humans into a small number of buckets and then I will tell you what all of them think, so that you can ignore them because they don't agree with you. Unless you are one of 'them'."

Oh yes they are. (Just a few examples there.)

OK, I can't verify how many of the people who have attacked an LGBT person lately is a Christian - or claims to be - but many of the most egregious attacks are carried out by people who claim to be "fighting evil" in the name of their religious beliefs, and in the "West" most of those were not Muslims.

No "hangings" that I can think of off hand, though being left tied to a fence might qualify. Throwing acid... hmmm, maybe not, but throwing boiling water, check. Shooting? Numerous. Raping? Numerous. Beating to death, check. Stabbing, yes. Firebombing, yep. I can remember from my childhood people talking of taking baseball bats to the park to beat up fags, and I didn't even know any Muslims then.

So, it's really no surprise that the other poster might have some of that history pop into mind.

Personally, my first thoughts were, "Oh God, not another" without any assumptions about who did it or why. I think most of us can agree that the reasons homicidally crazy people do homicidal things is hard to understand, and I'd go further to state that you can't take the things such a person says as truth in any simple sense.

Many will latch onto individual statements or bits of information as "proof" of their own pet hatreds or prejudices, or fuel for their own ambitions, but simplistic reasoning is usually false and will lead you to bad decisions.

I would recommend that people calling themselves Christians and inciting or carrying out violence would be well served to actually read the teachings of Christ and pay attention. I don't feel qualified to make recommendations to followers of other religious traditions, but I can hope for some good non-violent teaching there as well.

I probably shouldn't bother... but:

The passwords have no value in themselves, no more so than the key to your house has significant value in itself. In order to demonstrate this principle, here is a password I no longer use:
Vy7%f2l54

Good luck buying lunch with that.

The things protected by passwords and keys may or may not have financial value, whether intrinsic or created by agreements. Additionally, "financial value" is not the only form of value.

So, point taken, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous Coward, but I think I'll stand by my assertions, incomplete though they be.

I believe you have hit on it here. Buggy whips just aren't selling like they used to, either.

Each of these activities has costs, but whether the expenditure creates value is a different question. I can hire someone to move rocks from one side of my yard to the other, and then back again, incurring cost, with no value created whatsoever.

I have great affinity and sympathy for those who work to create works of technology (such as myself) or artistic works such as literature (my spouse and other relatives), but the mathematical reality is that information itself, if infinitely and cheaply reproducible and transportable, is without intrinsic financial value, and can only be effectively sold for non-trivial prices when artificially controlled by regulation.

I continue to be fascinated at this tug of war between one the one side the financial interests of creators and historically profitable distributors who no longer add any value, and on the other side the benefit to society of having easy, cheap access to information, each of which has value. In the end, there's no "right and wrong" here other than that which is agreed upon via government and other forms of negotiation.

And before "stealing" gets tossed out there, if you still have the thing which was "stolen", it wasn't stolen. It was copied. There's a difference. The argument about lost profits has more basis, but has been grossly exaggerated in many cases, and only exists due to the aforementioned agreements, not due to any inherent physical reality.

Bobby? Is that you?!

Thus leading to the Hulk hands issue previously noted.

I think there are different ways of looking at the issue, and it's interesting to observe.

I can, for example, see an argument that one of these dichotomies is between seeing humans as part of the natural global ecosystem, as opposed to something "outside" or "different from" the natural system.

If we assume the first, then whatever we do and whatever the consequences, it's just nature doing its thing. I think that's a valid point of view, albeit fatalistic and probably leading (naturally) to the eventual extinction of our species.

If we assume the second, that in some way we are "not natural" (perhaps because we can choose our group behaviors consciously, to some extent), then our actions and the consequences become a moral question and perhaps an existential challenge, and we should judge our choices accordingly. While there are obvious arguments against these premises and assumptions, I do think it offers at least a hope of long term survival if we can find a way to direct our group behaviors toward consequences favorable to our continued existence, leaving aside the aesthetic argument of keeping things that we like instead of destroying them.

It might be argued that killing off other species at a rate unprecedented outside of major calamity is not proven to be detrimental to our own survival, but I think that misses the point that even if we don't exterminate ourselves, we'd probably be better off and happier if we didn't befoul our own nest over-much.

Where in the world did we get this insane notion that education should be totally or even primarily outsourced to someone else in a building down the road a ways?

School in its various incarnations is a useful tool, but children learn *everywhere*, all the time. So do adults, if they are paying attention.

How about we focus our efforts on using the best available tools for the right jobs, and stop expecting "somebody else" to do all the hard parts?

Raising kids "right" starts before they're even conceived, and involves a lifelong commitment to seeing that your offspring get the very best you can provide in the way of teaching, providing, leading, guiding, and also getting the heck out of their way sometimes.

So, every kid, regardless of what happens for the minority of time spent in an institution of public forced indoctrination, gets a unique individual learning experience, whether you like it or not, and whether you planned it or mandated it or not. Sometimes it's a good one, far too often it's a neglectful one.

If you plan for schools to raise your kid, you're doing it wrong.

Far out, man.

Funny thing, through an individually tailored program of public school, tutoring, home schooling, online schooling, school-sponsored extra-curriculars, non-school-sponsored extra-curriculars, community organization participation, church going, scouting, going to college, family time spent learning and interacting, travel, educational shows, and spending time with friends just goofing off, my kids have all learned how to read, write, do math, sing, play sports, play musical instruments, act, create art, lead groups, program computers, provide health care, pick a spouse and get married, have babies and take good care of them, earn a living, drive cars safely, vote their conscience, be productive and creative members of society, ... ...AND respect people who are different from themselves and give them the space to find their own happiness.

Weird, huh?