When discussing political ideologies, it helps to use a common reference frame, just like in relativity. Adjusting meanings of commonly used terms to suit a particular argument is... Fraught. And confusing.

For clarity, try this model:

"Left" and "right" started as literal seating in the French revolutionary assemblies: deputies who wanted faster, deeper change (anti-monarchy privileges, more egalitarian reforms, later republicanism/secularism) sat on the President’s left; defenders of the King, Church, and traditional hierarchy sat on the right. That historical baggage still colors French usage more than the US bumper-sticker version.

Modern American "left/right" is usually a grab-bag of two different questions that often (but not always) correlate:

- Economic axis: how much the state should steer the economy, redistribute, regulate, provide services (more "left") vs. emphasize private property/markets, lower taxes, less regulation (more "right").

- Social/cultural axis: appetite for change and pluralism vs. preference for tradition, order, and continuity.

That’s why "liberal vs. conservative" is often clearer as a separate axis: "liberal/progressive" meaning more open to social change/civil liberties; "conservative" meaning more skeptical of rapid change and more focused on stability/tradition. Also, "liberal" is country-dependent: U.S. "liberal" often means center-left; "classical liberal" is closer to pro-market/limited-government.

Using those common frames of reference will help make your views more clear to both yourself and others.

Regardless, you'll note that neither the original nor the modern meanings of "left" and "right" align well with what you've described in these two comments. And in particular, FDR was very much a "move-fast-and-break things" President, eventually having to threaten to pack the Supreme Court with supporters when they continued to strike down laws that he had proposed, Congress passed, and he had signed before they stopped blocking his radical changes at every turn. Trump, by contrast, is "Reactionary" rather than "Liberal" (when he's consistent at all). That is, he wants not slow change, but a return to a previous era's values and norms. Possibly in his case, a feudalistic era's values and norms.

Imagine, then, one axis like this:

<---- Progressive ---- Liberal ---- Centrist ---- Conservative ---- Reactionary --- >

Where Bernie Sanders is on the left, and Donald Trump is on the right.

Or if you prefer overtly political labeling:

<---- Communist ---- Socialist ---- Democrat ---- Republican ---- MAGA --- >

There are, as previously mentioned, multiple axes. This is an oversimplification to get the point across.

So, it's six?

I'm a little disappointed at the number of comments and not one talks about Tony Stark's implementation of the ARC reactor.

Y'all should turn in your nerd cards right now.

Kudos to EditorDavid and Slashdot for performing some actual, original journalism and showing some technical capabilities in Slashcode that are infrequently visible to the users.

Implementation is a bit spotty, though, with the screenshot hosted on Imgur -- meaning UK 'dotters can't see it.

It means she's neither a hooker ("Are you done yet?") nor your mistress ("That's it, you're done?").

Dave Barry is deeply intertwined with the origins of Slashdot. The very pseudonym of our co-founder, CmdrTaco, is a reference to a Dave Barry column.

Unfortunately, the Miami Herald's archive does not appear to include Dave Barry's entire serialized oeuvre (Just most of it), and the only other citation I can find for "Commander Taco" related to Dave Barry is from his book, Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week, reportedly in an essay about the worst places to have a business lunch. Also unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book to double-check.

Your point is valid; however, you've conflated two related but distinct concepts: Constitutional changes, e.g., amendments, and Statutory changes, e.g., laws and regulations. Constitutional changes have a rigidly defined process for approval and are expected to be difficult, time-consuming, and carefully considered before implementation. Statutory changes are much more flexible, although they are constrained by Constitutional limits. Copyright straddles these two concepts: it's an explicitly authorized Constitutional function, enacted by statute and regulation. The "limited times" is the Constitutional constraint. Legislation -- laws and regulation -- cannot legitimately override a Constitutional constraint. Therefore, Congress' continued copyright extensions, in some cases retroactively, such that they never expire are violating not only the unwritten social contract but also a plain text reading of the Constitution. SCOTUS has thus far punted on the question of what constitutes "limited" and where Congress should draw the line; but in my not so humble opinion, we crossed that line the first time Congress retroactively extended copyright on existing works.

The Framers' intent here was clear, and until we amend the Constitution, it must be respected in Statute.

This comment exemplifies why, after more than 20 years of the never-ending parade of dupes, a proclivity to encourage trolling, and several ownership changes, I still frequent Slashdot on the daily.

Thank you, Steve.

Damn. Now that just looks like a political attack. I was going for funny with ... are arrested in Boston... but I botched my link.

I had no idea the moon required station-keeping... What will happen if the Mooninites go on strike (Or are arrested in Boston and deported?

Every company associated with AI scams loses status.

This argument looks suspiciously like the classic, "She was asking for it. Did you see the way she was dressed?"

Consent can be withdrawn at any point prior to penetration. The legal standard is very clear.

I think I've seen that movie...

[C]onnecting the North and South Island of New Zealand, with 1.2GW capacity

So very, very close to achieving time travel!