Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Security
'Scuse me, ma'am, do you have a license for that computer?
By on
August 04, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by Lee Schlesinger -
Should computer users be required to qualify for a license before they're allowed on the Internet?
Should computer users be required to qualify for a license before they're allowed on the Internet?
After all, you need a license to drive. The idea is that an objective party can certify that you can operate a potentially dangerous vehicle in a community full of vehicles, to ensure the safety of others as well as yourself. Leaving a driver unlicensed could result in grievous personal harm and substantial economic damage. (Of course an unlicensed driver could be one of the best on the road. In other words, lack of a license doesn't mean a driver is unskilled. The licensing mandate is designed to bring those who are not well-trained up to a certain standard.)
The only difference between operating cars and operating computers is that computer drivers are unlikely to injure anyone (unless they drop a monitor on their foot). Insecure computers, on the other hand, are fly paper to malware that can damage the owner's computer and those of others on the same network, leading to wasted time at best and potential economic harm.
I offer the idea as eWeek is publishing a Chicken Little story about "brewing hacker activity." Apparently experts are worried about hackers exploiting a serious bug in all versions of Windows that was discovered two weeks ago.
I sympathize with the poor Windows users. Most of them didn't choose to install an insecure operating system. When they or their employers bought their computers, Windows came with them; most hardware vendors don't offer any other choices, thanks in part to Microsoft's unfair and anticompetitive practices in the '90s.
Now they're stuck with a few unpleasant choices: keep current with the almost weekly patches from Microsoft (an impractical tasks for anyone but individual users); add firewalls, virus detection software, and other hardware and applications to plug the gaps in the operating system; or switch operating systems to something demonstrably more secure, such as Linux.
I still use a Windows computer alongside my Linux laptop. When I ran Windows Update on it earlier this week, it found 16 serious operating system flaws it needed to patch. The process took several days because not all the patches installed the first time -- many of them hung during the patching process. No organization can afford to spend so much time managing routine security upgrades across all their PCs..
Someday, some software developer is going to make a fortune by writing an application that searches a Windows PC and creates a configuration file that a Linux installation program can use to install the settings and applications that correspond to what's already installed under Windows. An application like that is a crucial missing ingredient in the recipe to make migration to Linux relatively painless.
Until we have such a thing, why not require users to know the fundamentals about maintenance, upkeep, and security before we let them drive off the lot, or at least before they hit the information superhighway? I hate bureaucracy as much as the next guy, but a little training up front could stop a lot of heartache down the road.
Comments
on 'Scuse me, ma'am, do you have a license for that computer?Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
This sounds to be right up the EU's street. Have you heard of their European Computer Driving Licence - already in operation? Currently voluntary, but with the EU's track record for oppressive, politically motivated regulation (and hang the taxpayers' expense) the compulsory version cannot be far behind.
Oh for the old English Common Law freedoms!
Oh for the old English Common Law freedoms!
You're right it was Jonathan Swift. It was a satirical piece on reducing poverty in Ireland.
Perhaps a license to speak would be a good idea, after all you need a license to drive two tons of metal at speeds up to 60 miles per hour (a non-sequitor, but not in Lee Schlesinger's opinion obviously, perhaps the difference between a physical projectile and opinion is something he is prepared to elide over.)
And certainly, a big heavy press, perhaps you should be licensed to use a press, no freedom of the press, god you could lose a finger in there.
Read "Technologies of Freedom" and understand why your life, and the opinions of many, are informed by a few who have licenses, for radio stations and TV, and cable, and now can buy the free press.
How can you call yourself an American?
And certainly, a big heavy press, perhaps you should be licensed to use a press, no freedom of the press, god you could lose a finger in there.
Read "Technologies of Freedom" and understand why your life, and the opinions of many, are informed by a few who have licenses, for radio stations and TV, and cable, and now can buy the free press.
How can you call yourself an American?
On subject - RE: freedoms and the future.
We must educate ourselves to see the whole picture!
What are your conclusions as you read the following?
John Adams, the second president of the United States, said "The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and must be willing to bear the expense of it."
John Adams believed that the foundation to democracy was in it's ability to educate it's citizens (a better education for every citizen results in better contributions from that citizen to the democracy as a whole -voting, daily living in a land run by the rule of law, business, war (when to and when not to), freedoms of, etc.).
Questions: What price do our democracy(s) pay when we look to afford the expense that we are paying for with only ONE dominant OS? The educational tool of the future is the computer (can you imagine any other tools that will be as important as the computer)... so, should we only pay homage to one rich and dominate OS AND is that healthy for a democracy to do? What is the affect when a proprietary OS, by nature, is closed and because of it being closed is alien to the concept of the freedom to pursue a path of pure education about it AND free educational use of it? On the other hand, what is the affect when an OS is formed with a pro-education model in mind, as is the Open Source one(s)? With which OS do we all equally (rich and poor) benefit as a democratic people? Do we all benefit MORE from the Open Source OS and it's existence? Hmmm, are software patents and copyrights on sofware that can live for a hundred years good for a democracy? Are restrictive licenses -where we have no choice because of a need to partake in the use of that license due to software patents or lengthy lives of copyrighted software, good as well?
Remember that we live in an electronic world! Let us be hopeful that it can remain a democratic one. Hopefully democracies around the world can be free from the influences of the actions of the rich (when the rich start to think only of themselves)... As the SCOs, the Microsofts, etc struggle to ensure that their own rich states are preserved... let us try to remember that their actions may run contrary to the natural course that a healthy democracy needs in order to survive.
A very interesting writing is below (maybe a bit off subject, yet it still has a bearing on the overall topic at hand):
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> v1ch11s10.html
Balanced Government
CHAPTER 11|Document 10
John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
1787Works 4:440, 444--45, 462--63, 556--58, 587--88; 5:90; 6:65, 118, 185--87
As we advance, we may see cause to differ widely from the judgment of Polybius, "that it is impossible to invent a more perfect system of government [than the Roman]." We may be convinced that the constitution of England, if its balance is seen to play, in practice, according to the principles of its theory; that is to say, if the people are fairly and fully represented, so as to have the power of dividing or choosing, of drawing up hill or down, instead of being disposed of by a few lords, is a system much more perfect. The constitutions of several of the United States, it is hoped, will prove themselves improvements both upon the Roman, the Spartan, and the English commonwealths.
The generation and corruption of governments, which may, in other words, be called the progress and course of human passions in society, are subjects which have engaged the attention of the greatest writers; and whether the essays they have left us were copied from history, or wrought out of their own conjectures and reasonings, they are very much to our purpose, to show the utility and necessity of different orders of men, and of an equilibrium of powers and privileges. They demonstrate the corruptibility of every species of simple government, by which I mean a power without a check, whether in one, a few, or many.
. . . . .
But perhaps it might be more exactly true and natural to say, that the king, the aristocracy, and the people, as soon as ever they felt themselves secure in the possession of their power, would begin to abuse it.
In M. Turgot's single assembly, those who should think themselves most distinguished by blood and education, as well as fortune, would be most ambitious; and if they found an opposition among their constituents to their elections, would immediately have recourse to entertainments, secret intrigues, and every popular art, and even to bribes, to increase their parties. This would oblige their competitors, though they might be infinitely better men, either to give up their pretensions, or to imitate these dangerous practices. There is a natural and unchangeable inconvenience in all popular elections. There are always competitions, and the candidates have often merits nearly equal. The virtuous and independent electors are often divided; this naturally causes too much attention to the most profligate and unprincipled, who will sell or give away their votes for other considerations than wisdom and virtue. So that he who has the deepest purse, or the fewest scruples about using it, will generally prevail.
It is from the natural aristocracy in a single assembly that the first danger is to be apprehended in the present state of manners in America; and with a balance of landed property in the hands of the people, so decided in their favor, the progress to degeneracy, corruption, rage, and violence, might not be very rapid; nevertheless it would begin with the first elections, and grow faster or slower every year.
Rage and violence would soon appear in the assembly, and from thence be communicated among the people at large.
The only remedy is to throw the rich and the proud into one group, in a separate assembly, and there tie their hands; if you give them scope with the people at large or their representatives, they will destroy all equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves. They will have much more power, mixed with the representatives, than separated from them. In the first case, if they unite, they will give the law and govern all; if they differ, they will divide the state, and go to a decision by force. But placing them alone by themselves, the society avails itself of all their abilities and virtues; they become a solid check to the representatives themselves, as well as to the executive power, and you disarm them entirely of the power to do mischief.
. . . . .
Let me proceed then to make a few observations upon the Discourses of Plato and Polybius, and show how forcibly they prove the necessity of permanent laws, to restrain the passions and vices of men, and to secure to the citizens the blessings of society, in the peaceable enjoyment of their lives, liberties, and properties; and the necessity of different orders of men, with various and opposite powers, prerogatives, and privileges, to watch over one another, to balance each other, and to compel each other at all times to be real guardians of the laws.
Every citizen must look up to the laws, as his master, his guardian, and his friend; and whenever any of his fellow-citizens, whether magistrates or subjects, attempt to deprive him of his right, he must appeal to the laws; if the aristocracy encroach, he must appeal to the democracy; if they are divided, he must appeal to the monarchical power to decide between them, by appeal to the monarchical power to decide between them, by joining with that which adheres to the laws; if the democracy is on the scramble for power, he must appeal to the aristocracy and the monarchy, which by uniting may restrain it. If the regal authority presumes too far, he must appeal to the other two. Without three divisions of power, stationed to watch each other, and compare each other's conduct with the laws, it will be impossible that the laws should at all times preserve their authority and govern all men.
Plato has sufficiently asserted the honor of the laws and the necessity of proper guardians of them; but has nowhere delineated the various orders of guardians, and the necessity of a balance between them. He has, nevertheless, given us premises from whence the absolute necessity of such orders and equipoises may be inferred; he has shown how naturally every simple species of government degenerates. The aristocracy, or ambitious republic, becomes immediately an oligarchy. What shall be done to prevent it? Place two guardians of the laws to watch the aristocracy,--one, in the shape of a king, on one side of it; another, in the shape of a democratical assembly, on the other side. The aristocracy become an oligarchy, changes into a democracy. How shall it be prevented? By giving the natural aristocracy in society its rational and just weight, and by giving it a regal power to appeal to, against the madness of the people. Democracy becomes a tyranny. How shall this be prevented? By giving it an able, independent ally, in an aristocratical assembly, with whom it may unite against the unjust and illegal designs of any one man.
. . . . .
Pythagoras, as well as Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon, was persuaded that the happiness of nations depended chiefly on the form of their government. They were fully sensible of the real misery, as well as dangerous tendency, both of democratical licentiousness and monarchical tyranny; they preferred a well-tempered aristocracy to all other governments. Pythagoras and Socrates, having no idea of three independent branches in the legislature, both thought, that the laws could neither prevent the arbitrary oppressions of magistrates, nor turbulent insolence of the people, until mankind were habituated, by education and discipline, to regard the great duties of life, and to consider a reverence of themselves, and the esteem of their fellow-citizens, as the principal source of their enjoyment. In small communities, especially where the slaves were many, and the citizens few, this might be plausible; but the education of a great nation can never accomplish so great an end. Millions must be brought up, whom no principles, no sentiments derived from education, can restrain from trampling on the laws. Orders of men, watching and balancing each other, are the only security; power must be opposed to power, and interest to interest. Pythagoras found this by experience at Crotona, where the inferior ranks, elated with the destruction of Sybaris, and instigated by an artful, ambitious leader, Cylon, clamored for an equal partition of the conquered territory. This was denied them, as inconsistent with an aristocratical government; a conspiracy ensued against the magistrates, who were surprised in the senate-house, many put to death, and the rest driven from their country. Pythagoras was one of the banished, and died soon afterwards, in extreme old age, at Metapentum. The Crotonians had soon cause to repent their insurrection; for they were defeated, with all their forces, by the Locrians and Rhegians, with smaller numbers.
The other Greek cities of Italy, which had imitated the example of Crotona, in deposing their magistrates, were harassed with wars against each other, and against their neighbors. In consequence of these distresses, the disciples of Pythagoras again recovered their reputation and influence; and about sixty years afterwards, Zaleucus and Charondas, the one in Locris, and the other in Thurium, revived the Pythagorean institutions. In forty years more, a new revolution drove the Pythagoreans entirely from Italy, and completed the misery of that beautiful country. Thus, experience has ever shown, that education, as well as religion, aristocracy, as well as democracy and monarchy, are, singly, totally inadequate to the business of restraining the passions of men, of preserving a steady government, and protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. Nothing has ever effected it but three different orders of men, bound by their interests to watch over each other, and stand the guardians of the laws. Religion, superstition, oaths, education, laws, all give way before passions, interest, and power, which can be resisted only by passions, interest, and power.
. . . . .
But shall the people at large elect a governor and council annually to manage the executive power, and a single assembly to have the whole legislative? In this case, the executive power, instead of being independent, will be the instrument of a few leading members of the house; because the executive power, being an object of jealousy and envy to the people, and the legislative an object of their confidence and affection, the latter will always be able to render the former unpopular, and undermine its influence. But if the people for a time support an executive disagreeable to the leaders in the legislative, the constitution will be disregarded, and the nation will be divided between the two bodies, and each must at last have an army to decide the question. A constitution consisting of an executive in one single assembly, and a legislative in another, is already composed of two armies in battle array; and nothing is wanting but the word of command to begin the combat.
In the present state of society and manners in America, with a people living chiefly by agriculture, in small numbers, sprinkled over large tracts of land, they are not subject to those panics and transports, those contagions of madness and folly, which are seen in countries where large numbers live in small places, in daily fear of perishing for want. We know, therefore, that the people can live and increase under almost any kind of government, or without any government at all. But it is of great importance to begin well; misarrangements now made, will have great, extensive, and distant consequences; and we are now employed, how little soever we may think of it, in making establishments which will affect the happiness of a hundred millions of inhabitants at a time, in a period not very distant. All nations, under all governments, must have parties; the great secret is to control them. There are but two ways, either by a monarchy and standing army, or by a balance in the constitution. Where the people have a voice, and there is no balance, there will be everlasting fluctuations, revolutions, and horrors, until a standing army, with a general at its head, commands the peace, or the necessity of an equilibrium is made appear to all, and is adopted by all.
. . . . .
In truth, it is impossible that divisions, in any form of simple government, should ever end in the public good, or in any thing but faction. The government itself is a faction, and an absolute power in a party, which, being without fear and restraint, is as giddy in one of these forms as in any other. "De l'absolu pouvoir, vous ignorez l'ivresse." It must, therefore, divide, if it is not restrained by another faction; when that is the case, as soon as the other faction prevails, they divide, and so on; but when the three natural orders in society, the high, the middle, and the low, are all represented in the government, and constitutionally placed to watch each other, and restrain each other mutually by the laws, it is then only, that an emulation takes place for the public good, and divisions turn to the advantage of the nation.
. . . . .
It is agreed that "the end of all government is the good and ease of the people, in a secure enjoyment of their rights, without oppression;" but it must be remembered, that the rich are people as well as the poor; that they have rights as well as others; that they have as clear and as sacred a right to their large property as others have to theirs which is smaller; that oppression to them is as possible and as wicked as to others; that stealing, robbing, cheating, are the same crimes and sins, whether committed against them or others. The rich, therefore, ought to have an effectual barrier in the constitution against being robbed, plundered, and murdered, as well as the poor; and this can never be without an independent senate. The poor should have a bulwark against the same dangers and oppressions; and this can never be without a house of representatives of the people. But neither the rich nor the poor can be defended by their respective guardians in the constitution, without an executive power, vested with a negative, equal to either, to hold the balance even between them, and decide when they cannot agree. If it is asked, When will this negative be used? it may be answered, Perhaps never. The known existence of it will prevent all occasion to exercise it; but if it has not a being, the want of it will be felt every day. If it has not been used in England for a long time past, it by no means follows that there have not been occasions when it might have been employed with propriety. But one thing is very certain, that there have been many occasions since the Revolution, when the constitution would have been overturned if the negative had not been an indubitable prerogative of the crown.
. . . . .
The people are the fountain and original of the power of kings and lords, governors and senates, as well as the house of commons, or assembly of representatives. And if the people are sufficiently enlightened to see all the dangers that surround them, they will always be represented by a distinct personage to manage the whole executive power; a distinct senate, to be guardians of property against levellers for the purposes of plunder, to be a repository of the national tradition of public maxims, customs, and manners, and to be controllers, in turn, both of kings and their ministers on one side, and the representatives of the people on the other, when either discover a disposition to do wrong; and a distinct house of representatives, to be the guardians of the public purse, and to protect the people, in their turn, against both kings and nobles.
. . . . .
I am not without apprehensions that I have not made myself fully understood. The people, in all nations, are naturally divided into two sorts, the gentlemen and the simplemen, a word which is here chosen to signify the common people. By gentlemen are not meant the rich or the poor, the high-born or the low-born, the industrious or the idle; but all those who have received a liberal education, an ordinary degree of erudition in liberal arts and sciences, whether by birth they be descended from magistrates and officers of government, or from husbandmen, merchants, mechanics, or laborers; or whether they be rich or poor. We must, nevertheless, remember, that generally those who are rich, and descended from families in public life, will have the best education in arts and sciences, and therefore the gentlemen will ordinarily, notwithstanding some exceptions to the rule, be the richer, and born of more noted families. By the common people we mean laborers, husbandmen, mechanics, and merchants in general, who pursue their occupations and industry without any knowledge in liberal arts or sciences, or in any thing but their own trades or pursuits; though there may be exceptions to this rule, and individuals may be found in each of these classes who may really be gentlemen.
Now it seems to be clear, that the gentlemen in every country are, and ever must be, few in number, in comparison of the simplemen. If you please, then, by the democratical portion of society we will understand the common people, as before explained; by the aristocratical part of the community we will understand the gentlemen. The distinctions which have been introduced among the gentlemen, into nobility greater or lesser, are perfectly immaterial to our present purpose; knights, barons, earls, viscounts, marquises, dukes, and even princes and kings, are still but gentlemen, and the word noble signifies no more than knowable, or conspicuous. But the gentlemen are more intelligent and skilful, as well as generally richer and better connected, and therefore have more influence and power than an equal number of the common people. There is a constant energy and effort in the minds of the former to increase the advantages they possess over the latter, and to augment their wealth and influence at their expense. This effort produces resentments and jealousies, contempt, hatred, and fear, between the one sort and the other. Individuals among the common people endeavor to make friends, patrons, and protectors among the gentlemen. This produces parties, divisions, tumults, and war. But as the former have most address and capacity, they gain more and more continually, until they become exorbitantly rich, and the others miserably poor. In this progress, the common people are continually looking up for a protector among the gentlemen, and he who is most able and willing to protect them acquires their confidence. They unite together by their feelings, more than their reflections, in augmenting his power, because the more power he has, and the less the gentlemen have, the safer they are. This is a short sketch of the history of that progress of passions and feelings which has produced every simple monarchy in the world; and, if nature and its feelings have their course without reflection, they will produce a simple monarchy forever. It has been the common people, then, and not the gentlemen, who have established simple monarchies all over the world. The common people, against the gentlemen, established a simple monarchy in Caesar at Rome, in the Medici at Florence, &c., and are now in danger of doing the same thing in Holland; and if the British constitution should have its euthanasia in simple monarchy, according to the prophecy of Mr. Hume, it will be effected by the common people, to avoid the increasing oppressions of the gentlemen.
If this is the progress and course of things (and who does not know that it is?) it follows, that it is the true interest and best policy of the common people to take away from the body of the gentlemen all share in the distribution of offices and management of the executive power. Why? Because if any body of gentlemen have the gift of offices, they will dispose of them among their own families, friends, and connections; they will also make use of their votes in disposing of offices, to procure themselves votes in popular elections to the senate or other council, or to procure themselves appointments in the executive department. It is the true policy of the common people to place the whole executive power in one man, to make him a distinct order in the state, from whence arises an inevitable jealousy between him and the gentlemen; this forces him to become a father and protector of the common people, and to endeavor always to humble every proud, aspiring senator, or other officer in the state, who is in danger of acquiring an influence too great for the law or the spirit of the constitution. This influences him to look for merit among the common people, and to promote from among them such as are capable of public employments; so that the road to preferment is open to the common people much more generally and equitably in such a government than in an aristocracy, or one in which the gentlemen have any share in appointments to office.
From this deduction it follows, that the precept of our author [Marchamont Nedham], "to educate children (of the common people) in principles of dislike and enmity against kingly government, and enter into an oath of abjuration to abjure a toleration of kings and kingly powers," is a most iniquitous and infamous aristocratical artifice, a most formal conspiracy against the rights of mankind, and against that equality between the gentlemen and the common people which nature has established as a moral right, and law should ordain as a political right, for the preservation of liberty.
By kings and kingly power is meant, both by our author and me, the executive power in a single person. American common people are too enlightened, it is hoped, ever to fall into such a hypocritical snare; the gentlemen, too, it is hoped, are too enlightened, as well as too equitable, ever to attempt such a measure; because they must know that the consequence will be, that, after suffering all the evils of contests and dissensions, cruelty and oppression, from the aristocratics, the common people will perjure themselves, and set up an unlimited monarchy instead of a regal republic.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 11, Document 10
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> v1ch11s10.html
The University of Chicago Press
We must educate ourselves to see the whole picture!
What are your conclusions as you read the following?
John Adams, the second president of the United States, said "The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and must be willing to bear the expense of it."
John Adams believed that the foundation to democracy was in it's ability to educate it's citizens (a better education for every citizen results in better contributions from that citizen to the democracy as a whole -voting, daily living in a land run by the rule of law, business, war (when to and when not to), freedoms of, etc.).
Questions: What price do our democracy(s) pay when we look to afford the expense that we are paying for with only ONE dominant OS? The educational tool of the future is the computer (can you imagine any other tools that will be as important as the computer)... so, should we only pay homage to one rich and dominate OS AND is that healthy for a democracy to do? What is the affect when a proprietary OS, by nature, is closed and because of it being closed is alien to the concept of the freedom to pursue a path of pure education about it AND free educational use of it? On the other hand, what is the affect when an OS is formed with a pro-education model in mind, as is the Open Source one(s)? With which OS do we all equally (rich and poor) benefit as a democratic people? Do we all benefit MORE from the Open Source OS and it's existence? Hmmm, are software patents and copyrights on sofware that can live for a hundred years good for a democracy? Are restrictive licenses -where we have no choice because of a need to partake in the use of that license due to software patents or lengthy lives of copyrighted software, good as well?
Remember that we live in an electronic world! Let us be hopeful that it can remain a democratic one. Hopefully democracies around the world can be free from the influences of the actions of the rich (when the rich start to think only of themselves)... As the SCOs, the Microsofts, etc struggle to ensure that their own rich states are preserved... let us try to remember that their actions may run contrary to the natural course that a healthy democracy needs in order to survive.
A very interesting writing is below (maybe a bit off subject, yet it still has a bearing on the overall topic at hand):
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> v1ch11s10.html
Balanced Government
CHAPTER 11|Document 10
John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
1787Works 4:440, 444--45, 462--63, 556--58, 587--88; 5:90; 6:65, 118, 185--87
As we advance, we may see cause to differ widely from the judgment of Polybius, "that it is impossible to invent a more perfect system of government [than the Roman]." We may be convinced that the constitution of England, if its balance is seen to play, in practice, according to the principles of its theory; that is to say, if the people are fairly and fully represented, so as to have the power of dividing or choosing, of drawing up hill or down, instead of being disposed of by a few lords, is a system much more perfect. The constitutions of several of the United States, it is hoped, will prove themselves improvements both upon the Roman, the Spartan, and the English commonwealths.
The generation and corruption of governments, which may, in other words, be called the progress and course of human passions in society, are subjects which have engaged the attention of the greatest writers; and whether the essays they have left us were copied from history, or wrought out of their own conjectures and reasonings, they are very much to our purpose, to show the utility and necessity of different orders of men, and of an equilibrium of powers and privileges. They demonstrate the corruptibility of every species of simple government, by which I mean a power without a check, whether in one, a few, or many.
. . . . .
But perhaps it might be more exactly true and natural to say, that the king, the aristocracy, and the people, as soon as ever they felt themselves secure in the possession of their power, would begin to abuse it.
In M. Turgot's single assembly, those who should think themselves most distinguished by blood and education, as well as fortune, would be most ambitious; and if they found an opposition among their constituents to their elections, would immediately have recourse to entertainments, secret intrigues, and every popular art, and even to bribes, to increase their parties. This would oblige their competitors, though they might be infinitely better men, either to give up their pretensions, or to imitate these dangerous practices. There is a natural and unchangeable inconvenience in all popular elections. There are always competitions, and the candidates have often merits nearly equal. The virtuous and independent electors are often divided; this naturally causes too much attention to the most profligate and unprincipled, who will sell or give away their votes for other considerations than wisdom and virtue. So that he who has the deepest purse, or the fewest scruples about using it, will generally prevail.
It is from the natural aristocracy in a single assembly that the first danger is to be apprehended in the present state of manners in America; and with a balance of landed property in the hands of the people, so decided in their favor, the progress to degeneracy, corruption, rage, and violence, might not be very rapid; nevertheless it would begin with the first elections, and grow faster or slower every year.
Rage and violence would soon appear in the assembly, and from thence be communicated among the people at large.
The only remedy is to throw the rich and the proud into one group, in a separate assembly, and there tie their hands; if you give them scope with the people at large or their representatives, they will destroy all equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves. They will have much more power, mixed with the representatives, than separated from them. In the first case, if they unite, they will give the law and govern all; if they differ, they will divide the state, and go to a decision by force. But placing them alone by themselves, the society avails itself of all their abilities and virtues; they become a solid check to the representatives themselves, as well as to the executive power, and you disarm them entirely of the power to do mischief.
. . . . .
Let me proceed then to make a few observations upon the Discourses of Plato and Polybius, and show how forcibly they prove the necessity of permanent laws, to restrain the passions and vices of men, and to secure to the citizens the blessings of society, in the peaceable enjoyment of their lives, liberties, and properties; and the necessity of different orders of men, with various and opposite powers, prerogatives, and privileges, to watch over one another, to balance each other, and to compel each other at all times to be real guardians of the laws.
Every citizen must look up to the laws, as his master, his guardian, and his friend; and whenever any of his fellow-citizens, whether magistrates or subjects, attempt to deprive him of his right, he must appeal to the laws; if the aristocracy encroach, he must appeal to the democracy; if they are divided, he must appeal to the monarchical power to decide between them, by appeal to the monarchical power to decide between them, by joining with that which adheres to the laws; if the democracy is on the scramble for power, he must appeal to the aristocracy and the monarchy, which by uniting may restrain it. If the regal authority presumes too far, he must appeal to the other two. Without three divisions of power, stationed to watch each other, and compare each other's conduct with the laws, it will be impossible that the laws should at all times preserve their authority and govern all men.
Plato has sufficiently asserted the honor of the laws and the necessity of proper guardians of them; but has nowhere delineated the various orders of guardians, and the necessity of a balance between them. He has, nevertheless, given us premises from whence the absolute necessity of such orders and equipoises may be inferred; he has shown how naturally every simple species of government degenerates. The aristocracy, or ambitious republic, becomes immediately an oligarchy. What shall be done to prevent it? Place two guardians of the laws to watch the aristocracy,--one, in the shape of a king, on one side of it; another, in the shape of a democratical assembly, on the other side. The aristocracy become an oligarchy, changes into a democracy. How shall it be prevented? By giving the natural aristocracy in society its rational and just weight, and by giving it a regal power to appeal to, against the madness of the people. Democracy becomes a tyranny. How shall this be prevented? By giving it an able, independent ally, in an aristocratical assembly, with whom it may unite against the unjust and illegal designs of any one man.
. . . . .
Pythagoras, as well as Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon, was persuaded that the happiness of nations depended chiefly on the form of their government. They were fully sensible of the real misery, as well as dangerous tendency, both of democratical licentiousness and monarchical tyranny; they preferred a well-tempered aristocracy to all other governments. Pythagoras and Socrates, having no idea of three independent branches in the legislature, both thought, that the laws could neither prevent the arbitrary oppressions of magistrates, nor turbulent insolence of the people, until mankind were habituated, by education and discipline, to regard the great duties of life, and to consider a reverence of themselves, and the esteem of their fellow-citizens, as the principal source of their enjoyment. In small communities, especially where the slaves were many, and the citizens few, this might be plausible; but the education of a great nation can never accomplish so great an end. Millions must be brought up, whom no principles, no sentiments derived from education, can restrain from trampling on the laws. Orders of men, watching and balancing each other, are the only security; power must be opposed to power, and interest to interest. Pythagoras found this by experience at Crotona, where the inferior ranks, elated with the destruction of Sybaris, and instigated by an artful, ambitious leader, Cylon, clamored for an equal partition of the conquered territory. This was denied them, as inconsistent with an aristocratical government; a conspiracy ensued against the magistrates, who were surprised in the senate-house, many put to death, and the rest driven from their country. Pythagoras was one of the banished, and died soon afterwards, in extreme old age, at Metapentum. The Crotonians had soon cause to repent their insurrection; for they were defeated, with all their forces, by the Locrians and Rhegians, with smaller numbers.
The other Greek cities of Italy, which had imitated the example of Crotona, in deposing their magistrates, were harassed with wars against each other, and against their neighbors. In consequence of these distresses, the disciples of Pythagoras again recovered their reputation and influence; and about sixty years afterwards, Zaleucus and Charondas, the one in Locris, and the other in Thurium, revived the Pythagorean institutions. In forty years more, a new revolution drove the Pythagoreans entirely from Italy, and completed the misery of that beautiful country. Thus, experience has ever shown, that education, as well as religion, aristocracy, as well as democracy and monarchy, are, singly, totally inadequate to the business of restraining the passions of men, of preserving a steady government, and protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. Nothing has ever effected it but three different orders of men, bound by their interests to watch over each other, and stand the guardians of the laws. Religion, superstition, oaths, education, laws, all give way before passions, interest, and power, which can be resisted only by passions, interest, and power.
. . . . .
But shall the people at large elect a governor and council annually to manage the executive power, and a single assembly to have the whole legislative? In this case, the executive power, instead of being independent, will be the instrument of a few leading members of the house; because the executive power, being an object of jealousy and envy to the people, and the legislative an object of their confidence and affection, the latter will always be able to render the former unpopular, and undermine its influence. But if the people for a time support an executive disagreeable to the leaders in the legislative, the constitution will be disregarded, and the nation will be divided between the two bodies, and each must at last have an army to decide the question. A constitution consisting of an executive in one single assembly, and a legislative in another, is already composed of two armies in battle array; and nothing is wanting but the word of command to begin the combat.
In the present state of society and manners in America, with a people living chiefly by agriculture, in small numbers, sprinkled over large tracts of land, they are not subject to those panics and transports, those contagions of madness and folly, which are seen in countries where large numbers live in small places, in daily fear of perishing for want. We know, therefore, that the people can live and increase under almost any kind of government, or without any government at all. But it is of great importance to begin well; misarrangements now made, will have great, extensive, and distant consequences; and we are now employed, how little soever we may think of it, in making establishments which will affect the happiness of a hundred millions of inhabitants at a time, in a period not very distant. All nations, under all governments, must have parties; the great secret is to control them. There are but two ways, either by a monarchy and standing army, or by a balance in the constitution. Where the people have a voice, and there is no balance, there will be everlasting fluctuations, revolutions, and horrors, until a standing army, with a general at its head, commands the peace, or the necessity of an equilibrium is made appear to all, and is adopted by all.
. . . . .
In truth, it is impossible that divisions, in any form of simple government, should ever end in the public good, or in any thing but faction. The government itself is a faction, and an absolute power in a party, which, being without fear and restraint, is as giddy in one of these forms as in any other. "De l'absolu pouvoir, vous ignorez l'ivresse." It must, therefore, divide, if it is not restrained by another faction; when that is the case, as soon as the other faction prevails, they divide, and so on; but when the three natural orders in society, the high, the middle, and the low, are all represented in the government, and constitutionally placed to watch each other, and restrain each other mutually by the laws, it is then only, that an emulation takes place for the public good, and divisions turn to the advantage of the nation.
. . . . .
It is agreed that "the end of all government is the good and ease of the people, in a secure enjoyment of their rights, without oppression;" but it must be remembered, that the rich are people as well as the poor; that they have rights as well as others; that they have as clear and as sacred a right to their large property as others have to theirs which is smaller; that oppression to them is as possible and as wicked as to others; that stealing, robbing, cheating, are the same crimes and sins, whether committed against them or others. The rich, therefore, ought to have an effectual barrier in the constitution against being robbed, plundered, and murdered, as well as the poor; and this can never be without an independent senate. The poor should have a bulwark against the same dangers and oppressions; and this can never be without a house of representatives of the people. But neither the rich nor the poor can be defended by their respective guardians in the constitution, without an executive power, vested with a negative, equal to either, to hold the balance even between them, and decide when they cannot agree. If it is asked, When will this negative be used? it may be answered, Perhaps never. The known existence of it will prevent all occasion to exercise it; but if it has not a being, the want of it will be felt every day. If it has not been used in England for a long time past, it by no means follows that there have not been occasions when it might have been employed with propriety. But one thing is very certain, that there have been many occasions since the Revolution, when the constitution would have been overturned if the negative had not been an indubitable prerogative of the crown.
. . . . .
The people are the fountain and original of the power of kings and lords, governors and senates, as well as the house of commons, or assembly of representatives. And if the people are sufficiently enlightened to see all the dangers that surround them, they will always be represented by a distinct personage to manage the whole executive power; a distinct senate, to be guardians of property against levellers for the purposes of plunder, to be a repository of the national tradition of public maxims, customs, and manners, and to be controllers, in turn, both of kings and their ministers on one side, and the representatives of the people on the other, when either discover a disposition to do wrong; and a distinct house of representatives, to be the guardians of the public purse, and to protect the people, in their turn, against both kings and nobles.
. . . . .
I am not without apprehensions that I have not made myself fully understood. The people, in all nations, are naturally divided into two sorts, the gentlemen and the simplemen, a word which is here chosen to signify the common people. By gentlemen are not meant the rich or the poor, the high-born or the low-born, the industrious or the idle; but all those who have received a liberal education, an ordinary degree of erudition in liberal arts and sciences, whether by birth they be descended from magistrates and officers of government, or from husbandmen, merchants, mechanics, or laborers; or whether they be rich or poor. We must, nevertheless, remember, that generally those who are rich, and descended from families in public life, will have the best education in arts and sciences, and therefore the gentlemen will ordinarily, notwithstanding some exceptions to the rule, be the richer, and born of more noted families. By the common people we mean laborers, husbandmen, mechanics, and merchants in general, who pursue their occupations and industry without any knowledge in liberal arts or sciences, or in any thing but their own trades or pursuits; though there may be exceptions to this rule, and individuals may be found in each of these classes who may really be gentlemen.
Now it seems to be clear, that the gentlemen in every country are, and ever must be, few in number, in comparison of the simplemen. If you please, then, by the democratical portion of society we will understand the common people, as before explained; by the aristocratical part of the community we will understand the gentlemen. The distinctions which have been introduced among the gentlemen, into nobility greater or lesser, are perfectly immaterial to our present purpose; knights, barons, earls, viscounts, marquises, dukes, and even princes and kings, are still but gentlemen, and the word noble signifies no more than knowable, or conspicuous. But the gentlemen are more intelligent and skilful, as well as generally richer and better connected, and therefore have more influence and power than an equal number of the common people. There is a constant energy and effort in the minds of the former to increase the advantages they possess over the latter, and to augment their wealth and influence at their expense. This effort produces resentments and jealousies, contempt, hatred, and fear, between the one sort and the other. Individuals among the common people endeavor to make friends, patrons, and protectors among the gentlemen. This produces parties, divisions, tumults, and war. But as the former have most address and capacity, they gain more and more continually, until they become exorbitantly rich, and the others miserably poor. In this progress, the common people are continually looking up for a protector among the gentlemen, and he who is most able and willing to protect them acquires their confidence. They unite together by their feelings, more than their reflections, in augmenting his power, because the more power he has, and the less the gentlemen have, the safer they are. This is a short sketch of the history of that progress of passions and feelings which has produced every simple monarchy in the world; and, if nature and its feelings have their course without reflection, they will produce a simple monarchy forever. It has been the common people, then, and not the gentlemen, who have established simple monarchies all over the world. The common people, against the gentlemen, established a simple monarchy in Caesar at Rome, in the Medici at Florence, &c., and are now in danger of doing the same thing in Holland; and if the British constitution should have its euthanasia in simple monarchy, according to the prophecy of Mr. Hume, it will be effected by the common people, to avoid the increasing oppressions of the gentlemen.
If this is the progress and course of things (and who does not know that it is?) it follows, that it is the true interest and best policy of the common people to take away from the body of the gentlemen all share in the distribution of offices and management of the executive power. Why? Because if any body of gentlemen have the gift of offices, they will dispose of them among their own families, friends, and connections; they will also make use of their votes in disposing of offices, to procure themselves votes in popular elections to the senate or other council, or to procure themselves appointments in the executive department. It is the true policy of the common people to place the whole executive power in one man, to make him a distinct order in the state, from whence arises an inevitable jealousy between him and the gentlemen; this forces him to become a father and protector of the common people, and to endeavor always to humble every proud, aspiring senator, or other officer in the state, who is in danger of acquiring an influence too great for the law or the spirit of the constitution. This influences him to look for merit among the common people, and to promote from among them such as are capable of public employments; so that the road to preferment is open to the common people much more generally and equitably in such a government than in an aristocracy, or one in which the gentlemen have any share in appointments to office.
From this deduction it follows, that the precept of our author [Marchamont Nedham], "to educate children (of the common people) in principles of dislike and enmity against kingly government, and enter into an oath of abjuration to abjure a toleration of kings and kingly powers," is a most iniquitous and infamous aristocratical artifice, a most formal conspiracy against the rights of mankind, and against that equality between the gentlemen and the common people which nature has established as a moral right, and law should ordain as a political right, for the preservation of liberty.
By kings and kingly power is meant, both by our author and me, the executive power in a single person. American common people are too enlightened, it is hoped, ever to fall into such a hypocritical snare; the gentlemen, too, it is hoped, are too enlightened, as well as too equitable, ever to attempt such a measure; because they must know that the consequence will be, that, after suffering all the evils of contests and dissensions, cruelty and oppression, from the aristocratics, the common people will perjure themselves, and set up an unlimited monarchy instead of a regal republic.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 11, Document 10
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> v1ch11s10.html
The University of Chicago Press
Well, a speaking licence would be good. Only an ethic test would be needed to have it. Some people really shouldn't have the right to speak (like spammers).
Yeah, certainly, and a license for Wi-Fi, we can't have have the hoi polloi wandering around polluting that limited spectrum with their $10 access points and we'd better do something about that report that shows that LPFM (low power FM) broadcasting at 100watts isn't going to cripple all the 50KW clear channel signals, despite the report that Congress reluctantly included and the FCC sat on, and the Amherst Alliance has forced the release of, the MITRE report, a document that was two years late from its congressional deadline of Febuary 1, 2001. After learning this report was finished but not being published, the Amherst Alliance filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petition to retrieve it. The FCC was very reluctant (or lazy) to release it, and was far past the FOIA deadline. But after pressure from the Amherst Alliance, the report has finally been released.
Yeah, what you Americans need is more licensing and regulation to ensure the status quo.
Yeah, what you Americans need is more licensing and regulation to ensure the status quo.
Its about as good an idea as TV Licensing is.
TV licensing is a bad idea?
Over here in the UK we pay for a TV license which gives us (on bbc1/2) quality programming with no stupid adverts!
When I watch something like Stargate on SKY 1, after the story intro and the beggining title, there are 5 mins of bloddy adverts!
Just after the beginning title?
No wonder DVR's do so well when they opt to skip adverts.
What is stupid are proprietary software licenses!
Now, what use are they to the consumer??
Over here in the UK we pay for a TV license which gives us (on bbc1/2) quality programming with no stupid adverts!
When I watch something like Stargate on SKY 1, after the story intro and the beggining title, there are 5 mins of bloddy adverts!
Just after the beginning title?
No wonder DVR's do so well when they opt to skip adverts.
What is stupid are proprietary software licenses!
Now, what use are they to the consumer??
Oh I'm from the UK as well, TV Licensing also pays for digital stations you have to pay for seperately, despite paying for them to be made, TV channels that few people who pay the fee can actually watch which have been known to have viewing figures as small as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... three, and radio stations that you pay for, that people without a license can listen to for free. BBC does have adverts, but only for its other channels (although I do concede its nice to not get interuppted by adverts, just not at that price). The Licensing people are incredibly unethical. How many companies could afford to threaten you in to paying? How many companies try to get entry in to peoples homes who don't even have licenses. It was introduced to make it so people with less money could watch, now its a stealth tax and nothing more.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and last, but most certainly not least of course. When I want to watch channels that are ad-paid for, why on earth do I need a TV License (I know technically you don't, but try telling the TV License people that!)
I would be happy to pay for BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News though, certainly not through licensing scheme to watch TV though, which I see in much the same vein as extrodinary and technically illegal EULA's software licenses.
(Sorry for the rant!)
I would be happy to pay for BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News though, certainly not through licensing scheme to watch TV though, which I see in much the same vein as extrodinary and technically illegal EULA's software licenses.
(Sorry for the rant!)
TV Licensing.
BBC1, BBC2, Radio 1,2,3,4,5, bbc.co.uk.
Mostly quality programming. 2 hour documentaries on Orwell or Gaugin? Uninterrupted coverage of the Wimbeldon finals? The Office? Fawlty Towers? Blackadder? Relatively unbiased news? Coverage of the Proms, Cambridge Folk Festival and Glastonbury?
£8/month and you think that's poor value for money?!!
BBC1, BBC2, Radio 1,2,3,4,5, bbc.co.uk.
Mostly quality programming. 2 hour documentaries on Orwell or Gaugin? Uninterrupted coverage of the Wimbeldon finals? The Office? Fawlty Towers? Blackadder? Relatively unbiased news? Coverage of the Proms, Cambridge Folk Festival and Glastonbury?
£8/month and you think that's poor value for money?!!
BBC one through five I believe now, several non-English channels and stations, four billion digital radio stations no one can recieve and seven radio stations anyone can get, but License payers pay for to watch television.
Yes!, its bad value for money if that money isn't being spent on the things I can actually watch!
besides, all that sort of stuff is on UK Gold!
Yes!, its bad value for money if that money isn't being spent on the things I can actually watch!
besides, all that sort of stuff is on UK Gold!
/me poses as a caring individual who knows that proprietary centrally controlled licensing ala Microsoft will be beneficial to the ignorant masses, and RobLimo is there to back me up.
Who would know.
Who would know.
Impractical, but spawns a possible good idea
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2003 07:07 PM
Who would decide who is competent, and what if you know what you are doing, but just disagree with their political views. I see this as an easy way to censor people. However, corporations may want to think about this. Do not let people use their machines unless they have demonstrated proficiency and understand how to avoid the mass mailing worms and such. They could actually save money by reducing maintenance costs.
'Scuse me, ma'am, do you have a license to program
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2003 07:24 PM
Of course, I'm a sexist pig, but we can't have just anyone contributing to the infrastructure the world requires for interconnection, particularly not a pretty little filly like your self.
Maybe when you come back with a license to programme, you will be allowed to contribute? I'll be keeping an eye on you though... .
Maybe when you come back with a license to programme, you will be allowed to contribute? I'll be keeping an eye on you though... .
'Scuse me, boy, do you have a license for that
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2003 07:33 PM
computer, or did you steal it off some white guy?
"You need a license to drive"
How is driving comparable to using the Internet? You need a license to drive because cars are incredibly dangerous. Licensing is the only way to at least ensure the person behind the wheel knows how to drive, even if they don't always apply that knowledge in practise.
Saying you need a license to access the net is like saying you need a license to read.
How is driving comparable to using the Internet? You need a license to drive because cars are incredibly dangerous. Licensing is the only way to at least ensure the person behind the wheel knows how to drive, even if they don't always apply that knowledge in practise.
Saying you need a license to access the net is like saying you need a license to read.
Reading this article I mean... and and even worse waste of time, replying to it!
Lots of credible discussion leading to "a modest proposal" outcome. If I've been decieved, so be it, but its hideousness, in this context, is what made it so intolerable to me. NewsForge, the Online Newspaper of Record for Linux and Open Source, advocating licensing... anathema or what.
...based on their IQ. The fee will increase by 100% for each 10 points of IQ below the world norm of 100. Somebody will get very rich collecting fees.
The practicle way to do it would be with a signed gpg key. that would also allow applications to being using gpg more easily, thus making the whole network more secure.
"Sorry, you have to have your internet license to access this web site" or "You can not use this chat software without your internet license"
There would be a huge learning curve though (teaching people how to preserve a web of trust, and keeping their key secure, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), and a lot of protocol changes/re-designs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but, it wouldn't be a bad idea if servers did require a valid GPG key to access them.
Allowing the annonimous web, though, would still be needed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but, I think it would cause those that post anonomously without a gpg key to loose credibility.
"Sorry, you have to have your internet license to access this web site" or "You can not use this chat software without your internet license"
There would be a huge learning curve though (teaching people how to preserve a web of trust, and keeping their key secure, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), and a lot of protocol changes/re-designs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but, it wouldn't be a bad idea if servers did require a valid GPG key to access them.
Allowing the annonimous web, though, would still be needed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but, I think it would cause those that post anonomously without a gpg key to loose credibility.
.
.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...a license to write articles?
.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...a license to write articles?
worse, do you have a license to think straight?!
I happen to have a SCO license<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
I happen to have a SCO license<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
LOL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a license for thinking.... Isn't that part of the Patriot Act? Wait.... no! That was a license for the government to read thoughts.
But seriously, the pigopolists would like nothing better after having already polluted the web with salesmen with the ethic of used car salesmen, than to further pollute it with control mechanisms. Imagine!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to be able to use the web, you'd have to use Windows because a virus scanner, which isn't necessary on Linux, would be required.
But seriously, the pigopolists would like nothing better after having already polluted the web with salesmen with the ethic of used car salesmen, than to further pollute it with control mechanisms. Imagine!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to be able to use the web, you'd have to use Windows because a virus scanner, which isn't necessary on Linux, would be required.
We're Sorry for you!
"Most of them didn't choose to install an insecure operating system."
Forget licensing end users, this seems to be your culprit right here! A better strategy would force operating system developers to comply with a set of security standards - much as we have safety standards for automobiles.
Forget licensing end users, this seems to be your culprit right here! A better strategy would force operating system developers to comply with a set of security standards - much as we have safety standards for automobiles.
Reading?
Checking books out from a library?
Looking at the newspaper in the vending machine?
Who knows, maybe they'll get their heads full of conspiracy mush about the Kennedy assassination and the Trilateral Commission. That's the risk of a free press.
The Internet (and, by extension, the WWW) is the supreme expression of our First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. Requiring some regulatory approval to access that would be like... like...
The USA PATRIOT Act?
Checking books out from a library?
Looking at the newspaper in the vending machine?
Who knows, maybe they'll get their heads full of conspiracy mush about the Kennedy assassination and the Trilateral Commission. That's the risk of a free press.
The Internet (and, by extension, the WWW) is the supreme expression of our First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. Requiring some regulatory approval to access that would be like... like...
The USA PATRIOT Act?
I would like to point out one fallocy to your statements and only because reading, checking out books from the library, etc are all activities that cannot directly affect everyone using the Internet in a matter of minutes like a OE virus can or whatever.
I mean, it's something to think about only in that when they run one of those scripts they get in email that they can affect ANYONE connected to the Internet.
Not saying the premise is right or wrong, however, just wanted to point out that the consequences of your examples don't affect the rest of the world within a matter of minutes.
*shrugs*
Requiring a license to access publicly-available information is itself a fallacy. With the subpoena power of the FBI against libraries and bookstores, Congress basically contradicted the charter document establishing its powers.
I think its an expression of free speech and the free press in everywhere that has them too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
Looks like someone has been looking at the old Adequacy.org Google caches again. Is it just me or is anyone else seeing more and more of these old articles resurfacing? It's not plagarism, but these articles do contain identical topics and main point. Also the comparison of computer licensing and driver licenses is identical.
I don't think it's intentionally rehashed, but rather speaks to the human condition. Many of these ideas repeat, but are arrived at independantly. Nice to know others out there "think like I do." I often wonder why a license is required to drive, but not to raise a child. No qualifications necessary. And that reads like a troll.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
The key is not licensing, but education. There are a lot of drivers out there that may understand the laws, but still not know how to drive in a fluid situation. Some learn by experience, but most are destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. No one ever learned anything from getting a license. It's a meaningless, bureacratic hoop.
This is a funny read when you realize that the point of driver licenses is not to have competent people on the road. It's for tracking, and revenue/cost offset. The lack of a license does not prevent one from operating a vehicle, just like that double-yellow line does not physically prevent someone from coming into your lane...
The key is not licensing, but education. There are a lot of drivers out there that may understand the laws, but still not know how to drive in a fluid situation. Some learn by experience, but most are destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. No one ever learned anything from getting a license. It's a meaningless, bureacratic hoop.
This is a funny read when you realize that the point of driver licenses is not to have competent people on the road. It's for tracking, and revenue/cost offset. The lack of a license does not prevent one from operating a vehicle, just like that double-yellow line does not physically prevent someone from coming into your lane...
Uhmm, no. You need a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway. You need no license to drive on your own property, on on someone elses property with their permission. Now, and it could be argued that connecting to the Internet is equivilant to entering onto the public highway system, but that's not what you said.
James Dixon
James Dixon
But then how could we communicate with polititians and judges.
I think we need a license for the President of the United States of America.
The conditions should be:
I will not take power via a coup d'ete.
I will not invade non-threatining nations.
I will not conspire with my "dad's" cia friends son to destroy the World Trade Center towers.
I will not lie to the American people in the State of the Union Address.
The conditions should be:
I will not take power via a coup d'ete.
I will not invade non-threatining nations.
I will not conspire with my "dad's" cia friends son to destroy the World Trade Center towers.
I will not lie to the American people in the State of the Union Address.
Where are the "do free stuff" and "ostensible and apparent authority" posters when we need them?
Ludicrous! Computers are appliances, not Porsches..
Another article author who didn't Google first :-)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2003 05:48 AM
If I search for "computer driving licence" in Google, the very first link I get is to the long-running <A HREF="http://www.ecdl.co.uk/" TITLE="ecdl.co.uk">European Computer Driving Licence</a ecdl.co.uk>, which further links to the Europe-wide <A HREF="http://www.ecdl.com/" TITLE="ecdl.com">ECDL site</a ecdl.com>.
If you look at the syllabus for it, you'll find it's carefully worded to avoid mentioning Microsoft products, but the reality of the situation is that - very sadly - almost all the ECDL training centres are run with MS Word, Excel etc. and nary an open source piece of software is to be seen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(
Of course, the ECDL inevitably spawns plenty of jokes - "I'm computer driving without a licence...I'm a lawbreaker !", "Just don't use Windows - then you won't crash and have your (computer) driving licence endorsed" etc. etc.
If you look at the syllabus for it, you'll find it's carefully worded to avoid mentioning Microsoft products, but the reality of the situation is that - very sadly - almost all the ECDL training centres are run with MS Word, Excel etc. and nary an open source piece of software is to be seen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(
Of course, the ECDL inevitably spawns plenty of jokes - "I'm computer driving without a licence...I'm a lawbreaker !", "Just don't use Windows - then you won't crash and have your (computer) driving licence endorsed" etc. etc.
heh
A computer is not a car. A single accident with a car can have tragic consequences in the real world (you know, people dying, etc.). To equate the losses incurred with a single car accident to you losing your precious data (regardless of size) shows a narcissistic streak that is unbelievable.
Your premise, while certainly a common complaint, is idiotic and senseless, and indeed, quite offensive.
Your premise, while certainly a common complaint, is idiotic and senseless, and indeed, quite offensive.
In a sea of satire was one very good idea: that of a configuration duplicator for GNU/Linux taken from existing Windows configuration. This wouldn't be terribly difficult to program as it would basically scan the registry for existing settings, and provide these as the defaults during the Linux installation. Almost certainly network and dial-up settings could be gleaned this way, and possibly font settings and perhaps even theme settings. The question though is how far would a vendor need to take this concept before it becomes useful?
Of course, the downfall is that Microsft could intentionally foobar the whole of the installation by changing the names of their registry keys, thus intentionally breaking a competitors software, while still maintaining internal consistency. That's the real hurdle: not the technical one of building such a program, but the political hurdle to make Microsoft "play nice".
Of course, the downfall is that Microsft could intentionally foobar the whole of the installation by changing the names of their registry keys, thus intentionally breaking a competitors software, while still maintaining internal consistency. That's the real hurdle: not the technical one of building such a program, but the political hurdle to make Microsoft "play nice".
...and now that MS has the Browser Wars won, they can implement it in IIS. Including the prize they've ben seeking all along...
CLIENT LICENSES for IIS webservers...just think of all the money they'll make. I'm surprised Bush isn't looking into a Constitutional Amendment.
CLIENT LICENSES for IIS webservers...just think of all the money they'll make. I'm surprised Bush isn't looking into a Constitutional Amendment.
Thats the most idiotic things I have ever heard. It would be impossible to enforce. If I want online I can get online, NO ONE does or will ever own the internet as they can not own all the hardware and servers around the world. By attempting to limit ANY access in a way other then the means by which they connect (Such as ISPs) it will be infringing on peoples rights. Further, if company ever crossed the unwritten bounds, which MS flirts with from time to time, the masses would simply take matters into their own hands and revolt.
Dumb Idea.
Every day people seem to be getting more and more stupid. Not because they're less mentally capable than those who came before, but because they're doing less and less thinking for themselves. That's the problem with ideas like this. They prevent people from having to think for themselves, forcing others to continue thinking and making decisions for them. It's a catch 22. This would be nothing more than another crutch for all the dullards out their to lean on, and most hackers would find a way around it anyway.
I used to be really smart. Then I got an Internet account.
Personally, I'd feel comfortable if I couldn't install sendmail on my server without a licence! What's this 'relay' thingy, anyway??
Spam City, that's what!
Spam City, that's what!
Most computer users are not aware that here is an alternative .
This is the way that very large software Company want's it to be.
Do not judge, therefore, those who buy Computer hardware already Bundled with Software Agressively sold with a No Choice Guarantee.
There but with the Grace Of God Go I.
Love Cathy XX
This is the way that very large software Company want's it to be.
Do not judge, therefore, those who buy Computer hardware already Bundled with Software Agressively sold with a No Choice Guarantee.
There but with the Grace Of God Go I.
Love Cathy XX
I've heard this before
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2003 05:55 PM"A modest Proposal"
Can't remember the author, too lazy to check. basically it proposed using children for food, leather, etc to help the flagging economy in Denmark. Complete and utter satire.
This is one of those suggestions that are technically, socially and politically impossible. Yet it comes up periodically (It did in my LUG mailing list just this week) While the idea is tempting. the reality is far too overarchingly rediculous to merit consideration.
Just start to design a workable plan to implement this and you'll see what I mean. from the certification system to the enforcement mechanisms. The resulting organization would eclipse the existing Internet and engulf it in a mindless buerocracy.
#