No. I believe that the Constitution is a giant leap forward in human civilization. It is the first time in 5,000 years of human history where men rule themselves by common agreement and their natural rights recognized and protected, and where the government is the servant and answerable to the people it governs. When it dies, it may well be another 5,000 years before it happens again.

""I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

I think you have a solipsist and cynical view of what the Constitution is and does, and are all too ready to allow whatever re-interpretation allows government to do whatever it wants as long as it's "your team" in power.

The Constitution was written in plain language and does not require advanced education to understand the plain meaning of it's words. All the tortured re-interpretations that seek to redefine the plain meaning of the Constitution are attempts to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the Amendment process that requires consent from those governed. It's simply changing the Constitution unilaterally and thumbing one's nose at the requirement that We the People consent.

If the government feels they need powers disallowed under the 4th Amendment (or any Amendment), they are free to try to amend the Constitution. No court, not even the SCOTUS, can alter the Constitution, and certainly no POTUS, Congress, or TLA can. If they could, then the Amendment process would have never been included or needed in the first place.

Views like yours over the last 100 years have allowed the US Government to exceed it's Constitutional powers, scope, and authority, and has resulted in a US that has become a de-facto police state and hegemonic crony-capitalist oligarchy.

But despite these facts proving by example of current reality the results of ~100 years of your views, you see my views as "childish". I don't see your views as childish. Simply hopelessly naive and far too trusting of those with power, when history proves again and again that such naivety and trust lead to tyranny and despotism.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Strat

Where on earth does the constitution say this?

It doesn't, but there is enough ambiguity in the language that layers upon layers of court cases have created this authority.

There is no ambiguity in the Constitutional language. Just because they (courts & politicians) try to muddy the water with semantic word games, solipsist reasoning, and tortured re-interpretations of the meaning of plain words and got some judges to buy it is meaningless. It's just a way to render the protections granted under the Constitution, and the restrictions upon government power, meaningless.

Yes, that's the way it has traditionally worked. But by keeping the spying a state secret, there has been no court challenges possible. This avoids another check on government power.

That's the problem. The Constitution *IS* the rulebook upon which our entire nation is founded. Government granting itself extra-Constitutional powers and authority is the root cause of the majority of problems the US is and has been increasingly suffering for over 100 years. Besides, with the kind of data the government holds against everyone, including SC Judges, one has to wonder how much of what the SCOTUS decides is affected by blackmail.

The SCOTUS is NOT the final arbiter of Constitutionality. We the People are the final arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They can claim anything they like is Constitutional. Doesn't matter if the People en-masse drag them all out and hang them from the nearest tree. Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that this should occur every 20 years or so, so as to keep Federal power in check and keep politicians in fear of We the People.

Strat

FTFY

Strat

Unless you're PR, you shouldn't use 'we' when talking about RedHat.

Also, RedHat is garbage, so stick that one in your hat. Debian and Ubuntu both have the policy that any updates must absolutely not break release; if they do, they're slated for next release. RedHat? Oh, right in the middle of RHEL6, let's drop crmsh for pcs, which didn't exist before in RHEL6, and not even note in our 6.4 release notes that crmsh is going away. People tell me "technology preview" a lot, but that's only an excuse for it being not-totally-functional to begin with; in Ubuntu, the policy of "Don't break shit that already works" applies to unsupported software as well as supported software--even if you don't get regular patches or bugfixes unless somebody is bored or you submit it yourself, you still don't wake up one day and find out that something that worked when the distro was released no longer works now because of an update.

RedHat is in the business of supplying crap.

No problem, you're welcome.

Well, I think you grasp the basic principle, but the Syria situation (as are almost every uprising/civil war, but triply-so in the current ME) is quite complicated, one complication being that NONE of the sides/groups involved view the US as anything more than the Western "Great Satan" that must be destroyed. Another is that the US has quietly been sending arms to rebel forces in Syria for some time. The Benghazi incident where US Amb. Stevens was killed is part of that little "extracurricular activity" playing out and why State Dept. and other officials have been so reticent and evasive when answering Congressional questions.

Here's an excellent-quality and fascinating (warning: it is a bit graphic) documentary on the global history of civilian gun ownership world wide over the last ~150 years, and the actual historical results of the consequences of governments disarming a populace or a segment of a populace. The concepts expressed in the documentary are the reason for the 2A.

Innocents Betrayed -The True Story of Gun Control World Wide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vNj2sb_00

Historical fact: The British troops on their way to Concord & Lexington were sent to locate and destroy civilian-owned muskets, cannon (yes, civilian cannon...think hostile Indians/raiders/etc), powder, etc, when that famous battle occurred.

Strat

Sure, why not? MySQL is crap. MySQL is crap. 10 years later, MySQL is still crap. MariaDB and Percona are less crap, but still crap.

Oracle is on-par with PostgreSQL, with some drawbacks, and you can argue and haggle--personally I think Oracle is inferior, but you'll get dissenters and they *are* in the same class. MS SQL Server is inferior--it's a good product in its space, but its space is a subset space of PostgreSQL. More to the point, Oracle and MS SQL Server are both closed, proprietary pay-ware; PostgreSQL, MySQL, DB2, and SQLite are free. That means the argument is essentially PostgreSQL vs MySQL.

PostgreSQL actually functions like a real database (MySQL does a lot of crap it shouldn't), outperforms MySQL, has working replication now (FINALLY, since around 8.0-ish, a few short years back), has BETTER replication than MySQL, and is about as easy to set up (I learned it in about 30 minutes). In general it's a better product as a database. Since it has no real drawbacks besides blunt protocol compatibility (i.e. a MySQL-specific app can't talk to PostgreSQL, either because of network presentation protocol (MySQL protocol 3306) or application protocol (MySQL-specific command language)) compared to MySQL, and many advantages, it's essentially a higher-quality and thus better piece of software.

Optimally, RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc should provide the best MySQL possible--Percona, MariaDB, whatever--while providing the guideline that PostgreSQL is a better product. Because, hell, they're already endorsing by dumping MySQL instead of simply including both Percona and MariaDB. The issue is that the political chip of saying, "X is better than Y," is very volatile. We could sit here and hash out merits and come to that exact conclusion--but even then, when we're all convinced that this is FACT and not OPINION, what do you think would happen if RedHat and Ubuntu both flatly said, "Use PostgreSQL, MySQL is crap"?

In Debian policy, something that is "unstable" and "unsupported" is still subject to the rules. Ubuntu repositories are organized based on support--main, universe, multiverse--and even things in multiverse aren't to receive breaking changes during a release. They may lag--they might be poorly tested, they might not work, they might not get prompt updates--but they certainly won't break on you.

High-availability is, by the way, a common business case and is in primary support in Ubuntu; but that's just nitpicking. Ubuntu is satisfied with the risk/responsibility the current software provides with the amount of testing they've done and the resources they have; RedHat is not. The real difference is Ubuntu does not expect its customers to accept the risk that software in the stable distribution may change, whether they officially support it or just supply it as a convenience.

Really, this is like one dentist office (RedHat) having a notice that says, "Our fillings contain 50% mercury and may leech over 5 years and cause long-term mercury poisoning," and another dentist office (Debian) having a notice that says, "We use 100% composite resin fillings." Amalgam fillings last 12-15 years, if they don't expand and crack the tooth; composite-resin last 7-10 years, after which they tend to shrink some and leak, requiring replacement. Then: You go into the dentist's office... and they tell you you need fillings or your teeth will rot out and you'll need root canal oral surgery.

Obviously, a 15 year replacement cycle is nicer than a 10 year replacement cycle, just like RedHat's 20 year maintenance term is nicer than Ubuntu 5 year LTS. Too bad RHEL is toxic while Ubuntu is guaranteed not to be.

Yes but if you're using KDE you should be euthanized.

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

This is not intended as a troll, but as a serious question...

What are the pro-gun ownership people doing about it? Isn't that the main argument that people in the US use to reserve the right to own a wide variety of military weaponry?

Or have I misunderstood the gun control debate? (Note: I don't live in the US.)

Turning to the 2A is the last resort. Contrary to how media has portrayed gun owners as a bunch of dangerous hicks just looking to shoot somebody, in actuality there are vanishingly few like that. They tend to quickly end up in prison or as testaments to Darwin. We will try to work through the system as much and as far as possible before turning to violence.

There's a saying in the US about the four boxes to be used in the defense of freedom; the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box, to be used in that order. We are still in the soap & ballot box stage, and entering the jury box stage.

Guns in civilian hands are just one deterrent against tyranny, not the first or the only deterrent.

It will not be gun-owning US civilians who start shooting first. It WILL be US civilians who shoot last if the government starts shooting, however.

The only way the US government could win a shooting war against the US population is if the government used WMDs to kill most of the population, but that doesn't leave much to rule over. Not to mention, the rest of the world might have a problem with the US government employing nuclear/chemical/biological weapons on a large scale for domestic genocide.

Strat

Or maybe it has more to do with this: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55749

I sincerely hope that story is pure BS, but at the same time, the US government's behavior over the last few decades and particularly over the last decade or so makes it at least somewhat plausible. Particularly in light of all the recent large-scale military/police drills & rehearsals that have alarmed people across the US that the authorities are very reluctant to be forthcoming about, apparently by the type and nature of the forces and their tactics, preparing for large-scale domestic urban combat actions against large numbers of unarmed/lightly-armed civilians such as protesters and rioters.

Interesting times, indeed. Damn you unknown ancient Chinese writer of proverbs/curses!

Strat

that at $700 (starting) it's not really a viable alternative to a $400 PS4.

It is if you consider that besides playing games, you could also use the Alienware machine to develop your own games as well as do music production, video editing, web development, word processing, spreadsheets, run fluid dynamics numerical simulations as well as play all of the indie, F2P and other games that are PC-only. And you have a choice of keyboard or controller.

And, as you say, the Alienware system is considerably more powerful than the "$400 PS4". Plus, you're not giving any money to Sony, which is probably more important to me than all the other points combined.

You and I may disagree vehemently on other topics (like politics :P ) but here we can agree.

Without going on at length, I do things with my computer that the added power would help with. I also like to play games. The convenience of doing both well adds value from my perspective. As well as, as you say, avoiding giving more money to either Sony or MS.

Strat

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed..

Yes, it does, and the election results prove it...

No, it does not. Many groups were suppressed before and during the 2012 election by the IRS targeting and likely other means at the government's disposal as well. Possibly the NSA played a part in blackmailing certain key individuals and organizations as well.

Besides, in order for the voters to be able to consent and to make a reasoned choice, they have to know what the government is actually doing. They most certainly did not. That does not equal consent.

Regardless of elections, the part of my sentence that you left out when you quoted me is the operative part that supports my statement, which you did not address:

When the government ignored (and continues to ignore) the restrictions on it's powers and scope that were part of the deal made with the people for consent, it forfeited that consent and forfeited it's legitimacy as a government.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Strat

You mean, exist in a reality where there are no secret NSA rooms mirroring all the data from major carriers?

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/11/09/2040206/ex-att-tech-says-nsa-monitors-all-web-traffic

No. Clapper is a lying POS that needs to spend many decades (his remaining life) inside a super-max cell.

And he's far from the only one in this government (from both political parties) that belongs in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, and many executed for their crimes against all US citizens of all political/religious/ideological stripes and the betrayal of their Oaths of Office to protect and defend the US Constitution that have been highlighted by the string of scandals and revelations of late, and their outright lies under oath in response to questions.

This is not a (R) or (D) issue. They don't even bother keeping promises to their own Party's constituents unless it fits their agendas. They lie and betray everyone while defying and destroying the Rule of Law and constantly seeking to further restrict and redefine individual liberty and Constitutional Rights.

They see themselves as our masters and ALL of us as serfs. History demonstrates repeatedly that this is what happens when a government and those running it gain too much power relative to the people.

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

Strat