00:00:00 --- log: started forth/18.12.18 00:04:36 i'm finally got around to watching the Charles Moore interview 00:05:29 I can't recall ever watching one, but I know I've read two 00:14:19 this might be it: https://wiki.forth-ev.de/doku.php/events:ef2018:interview 00:14:47 the video is unsupported for me :-( 00:16:23 found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX3kXbLmwn4 00:19:31 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 01:10:36 --- quit: libertas (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 01:12:32 --- join: libertas (~libertas@a95-93-229-182.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 01:13:34 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 01:37:09 --- quit: libertas (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 01:39:07 --- join: libertas (~libertas@a95-93-229-182.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 01:42:39 --- join: xek (~xek@apn-31-0-23-82.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl) joined #forth 01:50:25 --- quit: libertas (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 02:02:36 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 02:03:37 --- join: libertas (~libertas@a95-93-229-182.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 02:12:39 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@95.239.223.85) joined #forth 02:12:57 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth 02:35:13 --- join: gravicappa (~gravicapp@94.228.252.233) joined #forth 02:38:35 --- quit: libertas (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 02:40:23 --- join: libertas (~libertas@a95-93-229-182.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 02:45:31 --- quit: libertas (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 02:46:37 --- join: libertas (~libertas@a95-93-229-182.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 03:07:46 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 03:28:57 --- quit: gravicappa (Remote host closed the connection) 04:25:50 --- join: rdrop-exit (~markwilli@112.201.164.82) joined #forth 04:28:41 --- quit: mark4 (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 04:28:46 dave0: nice interview, thanks for the link 04:32:37 i just finished it just as you said that :-) 04:33:10 the hardware stuff went whoosh over my head, but i liked the history 04:34:09 he sounds like a nice guy 04:34:27 i want to hear more :-) 04:34:40 espeically about coding 04:37:15 --- join: dddddd (~dddddd@unaffiliated/dddddd) joined #forth 05:29:05 I think he likely is a quite nice guy. 05:29:46 I think he's been taken advantage of more than once by business acquaintances - he doesn't seem to bring a "cutthroat" mentality to such interactions, so he winds up getting used. Such a shame. 05:31:15 He's had some ideas that became rather important in the CPU business, but they came under the control of patent trolls. 05:31:37 At least I think that's the case - I'm not a particular expert in all that history. 05:33:27 See references online to the "Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio." 05:34:24 https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/qa-with-moores-ip-manager 05:34:24 but don't confuse him with Intel's Gordon Moore 05:34:49 That article I just linked states Chuck as the primary inventor of the portfolio technologies. 05:35:03 Thing is, that's been around for a long time - surely most of it has timed out by now. 05:35:18 It's like 17 years in patent law, isn't it? 05:36:01 I've read that renewals are allowed only rarely, primarily when the patent holder can claim that the government itself interfered with ability to extract profit from the technology. 05:36:14 Like if a drug license or something was required and the FDA drug its feet. 05:36:38 heh nice pun :-) 05:37:02 So if you patent a drug, then the FDA takes five years to let you sell it - under those conditions the patent folk will give you a five year extension. 05:37:09 :-) Accident - I'm not that awake yet. 05:38:12 I'm in favor of renewals being rare - I think the general approach of allowing some period of time for inventors to profit and then pushing tech into the public domain is exactly the right approach. 05:39:08 After all, you can't profit from your creations without a market and a stable society that's generally violence free and orderly. 05:39:14 And it takes all of us to create that environment. 05:39:41 As you extract your profit, you benefit from the culture all of us cooperate to create. 05:40:34 That's my main arguement against strict Liberetarianism. Libertarians like to claim they achieved their success totally on their own, but that's just not really true. 05:40:39 Patents make sense in some cases. 05:41:05 Oh, I'm all for patents. Just of limited duration. 05:41:19 Imo copyright should have a limited duration, too. 05:41:36 Like, not "70/95 years after the death of the artist". 05:41:48 But none of us "go it alone" these days. Maybe 150-200 years ago you still had people out in the sticks that raised their own food, built their own homes, sewed their own clothes, fought off the Indians by themselves, etc. 05:42:08 Things that were just released when my grandfather was a baby are still copyrighted today. It's crazy. 05:42:11 But these days we are thoroughly "interlocked" - my ability to support myself by practicing an engineering specialty depends completely on our stable culture. 05:42:23 Yeah, copyright isn't handled quite as well. 05:42:40 It's really shitty. 05:42:43 A few years ago a fan group Kickstartered a new Star Trek movie, called "Prelude to Axanar." 05:42:53 There's a teaser video out there - search for that title. 05:42:55 It's EXCELLENT. 05:42:59 Paramount shut them down. 05:43:09 Damn it, Star Trek is 50 years old and Gene Roddenberry is dead. 05:43:14 The CONCEPT should be public domain now. 05:44:07 I could get behind a "lifetime of the author" rule, provided the author himself still wanted to hold the rights. 05:44:16 I think when he sells the rights off, though, the rules should change. 05:44:20 Eh, that's a different thing. 05:44:30 The name "Star Trek" is a registered trademark. 05:44:50 Companies can exist for centuries. It makes sense that their trademarks can be protected for a long time. 05:45:33 Well, I don't want to argue over it. All I know is that the rules cost us what looked like it could have been a superb offering. 05:45:50 You can retell Harry Potter and sell it as "Harald TÃ¶pfer" without problems. The only issues are, when you directly plagiate and when you use trademarked names. 05:46:37 I don't know the details of the Paramount claims, but I think it had to do with things as trivial as uniform design and so on. 05:47:06 Anyway, all I'm saying is that some sort of process for gradually making intellectual creations public domain should exist, like in the patent realm. 05:47:11 Design is a patent thing. 05:47:31 The proper length of time might vary depending on the industry and so forth. 05:48:09 Otoh a specific design/work of art is also copyrighted... 05:48:19 And my argument for it is what I said above - that it takes the whole community to "enable" that sort of profiting. 05:48:21 People should just release their stuff with copyleft licenses. 05:49:02 Releasing stuff as CC-by-sa-nc would be totally enough for most purposes. 05:49:04 will gnu software still be useful when the copyright expires? :-) 05:49:05 The same argument is a good philosophical defense of taxation. 05:49:12 Libertarians also like to say "all taxation is theft." 05:49:28 But you do benefit from the society - like I said, no one goes it alone anymore. 05:49:37 It's not wrong to ask you to contribute back. 05:49:47 That doesn't mean all specific tax structures are "fair." 05:50:24 David Revoy releases the "Pepper&Carrot" comic as cc-by-sa. He makes thousands a month via patreon and lives well from it. 05:50:37 That's great. 05:50:41 I am pretty sure that this would work just as well with movies, books or anything else. 05:50:49 I love seeing things like that happen with the "corporate middle men" cut out. 05:51:14 KipIngram: Which "corporate middle men" are there in the case of Pepper&Carrot? 05:51:26 There used to be a place for them - like musicians couldn't get their work out without factories to manufacture LPs and CDs and so on. 05:51:43 But with the internet they're really not needed as much anymore - those industries still exist primarily by legal inertia. 05:51:54 I'm eager to see them wither away. 05:52:10 They are afraid. 05:52:12 Well, maybe done - I don't know Pepper&Carrot. 05:52:22 Sure they are - their money machine is breaking. 05:52:36 It's not broken yet. 05:52:36 The world has evolved so that they're less necessary, and that would scare any vested interest. 05:52:56 No, it's held together by contracts and laws and so on. But it's not as NECESSARY as it used to be. 05:52:57 They just find newer and more aggressive ways of making money. 05:53:43 There are musicians who filled stadions when they were on the top of the wave. Now they are old but make more money than in their bloom because they manage themselves. 05:53:58 Right. 05:54:14 I'm just in favor of the most direct possible money pipe between the consumers and producers. 05:54:36 Of course, we don't help that process along when we brazenly pirate stuff. 05:54:37 But things are changing. People are starting to use things as patreon to crowdfund and micropay producers. 05:54:51 Yes, and that's great. 05:55:09 The Fediverse started to exist and it's growing more and more. 05:55:15 Those "possibilities" are really good things to come from the internet age. 05:55:27 i'm not familiar with that. 05:55:32 Googling. 05:55:53 ssssssh 05:55:56 shhhhhh 05:56:01 don't jinx it 05:56:05 :-) 05:56:11 talking about copyright terms, I mean 05:56:33 in just a few short weeks ... if no one messes it up ... things will start entering the public domain again in the United States 05:56:36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_in_public_domain#Entering_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States 05:57:30 and by "things" I mean copyrighted things that were covered by the Copyright Term Extension Act 05:57:51 Good. 05:59:51 * dzho reads back 05:59:56 patents are 20 years, now 06:00:30 on or after 1995 06:00:32 Ok. Well, I don't fret too much over the EXACT number. 06:00:34 in the US 06:00:57 well, it's interesting imnsho because a lot of so-called "intellectual property" stuff changed a lot in the '90s 06:01:02 As fast as tech changes these days I could see arguing for a lower number, but at least the stuff "gets there." 06:01:09 US also moved from first-to-invent to first-to-file 06:01:19 We just have to start and continue producing creative-commons-licensed content. 06:01:32 I like first to invent better, but oh well. 06:01:45 First to file favors larger entities that have the money to pay the filing costs. 06:01:49 but yeah I'm much less squicked out by patents than I am by copyright extension, especially with patent trolling starting to be dealt with 06:01:51 So it's "pro-corporate." 06:02:12 Yes, the copyright game is pretty broken. 06:02:16 first-to-file encourages disclosure, so it's also pro public interest 06:02:31 Copyright is 95 years or so for corporations. 06:02:35 I'd be fine with it, if we could make the filing costs more reasonable. 06:03:03 That's something else that the internet should do but hasn't - it should be possible to get stuff "filed," whether a patent is granted or not, much more cheaply now. 06:03:07 you have to remember what the non-patent default is: Trade secrets governed by contract law. 06:03:56 I also think that patents shouldn't cover personal private use - if I can build something for my own use, I shouldn't be prohibited from doing so. 06:04:02 obviously this cannot apply to creative works covered by copyright--the whole point of an interest in most such works is in their dissemination while still being covered by legal restrictions. 06:04:04 Not many people can do that, so it's not economically significant. 06:04:14 I wouldn't be allowed to sell it if someone else had it patented. 06:04:14 fair use for patents--I like it 06:04:28 you can see how that'd be gamed, though: people would sell kits 06:04:33 But I don't like the notion that I can be forbidden from building something for personal private non-profit use. 06:04:39 same 06:04:44 That would still be profiting. 06:04:49 Patent should protect against that. 06:04:58 A judge can tell when someone is profiting vs. personally using. 06:05:17 If I'm not badly mistaken, that is how it's done in Europe. 06:05:57 Me even "consulting" with a friend (for a fee) to assist them in building their own would also be "profiting." 06:06:05 On the other hand if I did it for free it wouldn't be. 06:06:50 Practically speaking that's not really an issue - if I build something at home and use it at home, no one is likely ever to know. 06:07:00 So it's a moot point, if I'm smart about it. 06:07:05 And don't "tell on myself." 06:07:54 Like if I design a processor in an FPGA, it's fairly likely that I'd have stepped on something in that Moore portfolio. There are some pretty fundamental things in there. 06:10:38 That link I gave earlier says that having separate CPU and I/O clocks is in the portfolio, and fetching multiple instructions on one fetch is too. 06:10:55 So that "packed opcode" approach that I'd use in a Forth-style processor? Looks covered. 06:11:12 That seems like it would be easy to dodge, though. 06:11:44 What if I just defined a huge instruction set that was the three-way product of my individual instructions? 06:11:59 I just wouldn't CALL the five bit things instructions; I'd call the 16-bit things instructions. 06:12:13 And I'd have 32768 instructions instead of 32. 06:13:08 And the multiple clocks - what if you just designed your I/O so that it used the fast CPU clock, but took critical actions only every four or eight states? 06:13:22 It wouldn't really be USING a slower clock then. The state machine would still be clocked by the CPU clock. 06:16:59 I actually consider both of those things rather lame things to have allowed a patent on. 06:17:22 That is one of the problems with the patent system - all too often it allows patenting of "obvious" things, even though it *purports* to avoid that. 06:30:53 --- quit: rdrop-exit (Quit: Lost terminal) 06:32:07 --- join: DKordic (~user@178-221-182-126.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs) joined #forth 06:47:06 KipIngram: what you have described as Libertarianism here really isnt. It is just GOPpers that fled the destruction they caused themselfs. 06:49:49 regarding copyright and patents: their duration are 14 years, regardless of whatever later regulatory capture occured 06:51:21 what I have found intriguing is the idea of fixed taxes. That is, no new kinds of taxes. 06:53:26 A good idea is to abolish personal income tax and just have corporate and sale taxes as the sources from work expended. 06:53:58 I do think the income tax was, and remains, a bad structure. 06:54:37 how is corporate tax not income tax? 06:54:53 It is an income tax, just on a corporation instead of an individual. 06:54:57 I lean more toward VATs. 06:55:10 the individuals are paid by the corporations 06:55:16 you think it won't still come out of your salary? 06:55:30 Of course it will - any tax ultimately does. 06:55:48 There's really just "the pie," and taxes take a slice of it. 06:56:06 Taxation is theft btw 06:56:07 Whether they take before or after the pie is divided up isn't really relelvant. 06:56:10 :-) 06:56:14 zy]x[yz: and those salaries/wages/etc are actually expenses for the corporation. 06:56:39 i just don't understand how one recognizes individual income tax as a bad thing but justifies corporate tax 06:56:41 And yet an orderly society has value, WilhelmVonWeiner. 06:56:54 We all benefit from it - you're saying we should get those benefits for free? 06:56:59 How would that work? 06:57:18 the vast majority of government spending, i don't benefit from 06:57:21 That's not at all what "Taxation is theft" means, nor what I believe 06:57:28 Really, all taxes are "bad," but the government has to be paid for some way. 06:57:33 I don't believe anarchy is the right answer. 06:57:52 zy]x[yz: so if a corporation pays its employees so it doesnt have as much netto income then those peeps can 'stimulate' more 'economic activity' 06:57:58 I just think it's apodictic that private business has always provided better service than socialised business 06:58:02 Now, you can argue that a particular tax structure isn't "fair," and in that sense it would be theft from the people being treated unfairly. 06:58:10 Don't see why that can't be extended elsewhere. 06:58:22 I do think that the government is involved in way too many things. 06:58:25 Is there a way to put politicians on a stack? 06:58:26 I agree with that. 06:58:41 The "basic list" of things the government obviously needs to be involved in is pretty damn short. 06:58:55 Military defense of the nation, law enforcement within the nation. 06:59:00 Zarutian, i see what you're saying. employment expenses are deductible 06:59:02 And anything beyond that is arguable. 06:59:10 WilhelmVonWeiner: do it like the old Persia did it? With limited-duration&scope-enterprises and waqfs providing most of the usual services provided by governments? 06:59:39 The most obvious one to me is education. I don't really see why that can't be completely privatized. 06:59:56 And yet the government's been in it basically forever. 07:00:01 I don't see why police can't be privatised, really. 07:00:08 i like this channel 07:00:21 KipIngram: privatized and run by 3 R charities (Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic) 07:00:39 Well, I can't agree with you on that one, but I support your right to the opinion. 07:00:46 (to prevent too much fucking stupidity) 07:01:14 If police protection isn't uniform, you're just setting up a target group. 07:02:10 But there are LOTS of things we can talk about getting the government "out of" before we come to that one as our arguing point. 07:02:28 If you've ever got the time read the book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by this guy, Robert Nozick 07:02:41 real tome, but very worthwhile 07:03:54 I think what military and police have in common is that they are "authorized users of force." I think it's just a better idea to keep the authorized use of force in the public domain. 07:04:16 We could talk about fire protection, though - I might be more likely to agree with you there, in the end. 07:04:24 All force is CC0 07:04:32 CC0? 07:04:51 https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/ 07:05:05 what I have seen via the 'Net of USA is that much of its taxes does go to what governments purports they go to 07:05:25 Does or does not? 07:05:26 It's a license that enforces public domain in places there may not be a "public domain" 07:05:29 doesnt sorry 07:05:44 Yeah, I think there's a lot of gamesmanship going on, which is bad, of course. 07:06:12 No doubt in my mind that most people in government are just building power rather than "serving the public." 07:06:34 Whoever decided it was a good idea to let the DEA decide what chemicals should and shouldn't be banned was an idiot. 07:06:50 They just add new ones to the list constantly, and it's obvious the purpose of that is to "build their empire." 07:07:14 I generally disapprove of agencies getting to make rules - it should all have to go through Congress. 07:07:19 --- join: mark4 (~mark4@148.80.255.161) joined #forth 07:07:23 most people "in government" are just working to make money like any other job 07:07:29 And not in "omnibus form," either - Congress should have to discuss and debate every single rule. 07:07:35 DEA isnt per se an governmental institution, they are just legalized thugs 07:07:35 maliciousness vs incompetence 07:07:51 Ok, most "significant decision makers." 07:08:08 Agency chiefs and so on. 07:08:52 I don't know that I consider any (or "many") of them "malicious." 07:08:53 WilhelmVonWeiner: to me, the difference between those two is basically intent but the effect the same. 07:08:55 They're just self-serving. 07:09:09 It's a game, and they play it to their best career advantage. 07:09:30 And you can't expect otherwise - it's the rules of the game that need to be changed, not the people playing. 07:09:34 Humans are human. 07:10:47 Of course the NSA is going to want to monitor everything - it's "better success" at what's supposed to be their job. They're not going to restrain themselves - we need to just not let them go that far. 07:10:51 Zarutian: I think that's the point of Hanlon's razor, the quote I'd "optimised" (read: lazily quasi-paraphrased) 07:11:51 KipIngram: ya know of the game genre called nomic? What I have seen in the Agora nomic (which is played via a few mailinglists) is that if there are rules that are relatively easy to change and yet are more powerfull/primitive/fundemental they will be changed to serve the intrests of few. 07:13:30 KipIngram: re no "omnibus form,": that is how Swiss does it iirc 07:14:44 --- quit: smokeink (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) 07:15:04 KipIngram: re NSA: something that has irritated me for a long while now is that no one seems to want to give good concrete definition what 'national security' means. 07:17:43 Yeah, that sounds reasonable. People are always looking for ways to game the system. 07:18:13 It's human nature. 07:18:57 That's one of the reasons I'm very glad it's quite hard to change our Constitution. 07:19:14 apparently it's not hard to just ignore it though 07:19:19 "National Security" means whatever your superiors have deemed it to means, Citizen ZR433B. Your McFreedom is safe in our hands. Do Not Panic. 07:19:21 So true. 07:19:30 for instance, I know what computer security means. I know what financial security means (both in the sense of having enough and those tranferable financial instruments) 07:19:36 Back to the silicon mines, Citizen. 07:20:43 Well, the first and most obvious thing that national security means to me is that operatives of foreign nations are prevented from entering the country and deploying force. 07:20:55 WilhelmVonWeiner: that then just means that it is a meaningless buzz phrase. 07:21:06 I could probably add some things about ensuring that the operation of our government is driven by US citizens and not foreign nationals. 07:21:19 But you're right - having a nice crisp "bullet list" of things that it means would be a good thing. 07:21:49 KipIngram: yeah here is a thing. Is a corporation a 'citizen'? No. 07:21:51 As it is today it's a "conjuring phrase," which I think was your point. 07:22:14 Yeah, I totally disagree with the idea of regarding a collective of any kind as a separate legal entity. 07:22:20 PEOPLE are citizens. 07:22:24 Period and full stop. 07:22:28 KipIngram: no, my point is that I want to get a good definition so I can nail weasles that try to use it 07:22:42 Yes, that's what I meant. 07:22:59 You claim "national security" - precisely which bullet item and how? 07:24:00 All too often "national security" is invoked when what they're really talking about is "protecting the status quo." 07:24:28 more precisely it is most often invoked to protect their arses 07:25:09 :-) Yes, that too. 07:26:55 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 07:28:33 something I recentlyish found out that might be in the same vein. "Qualified immunity" of governmental agents/employees only applies in front of governmentally run courts and not international arbitration tort courts. Something to keep in mind, perhaps. 07:35:37 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) 07:44:05 Kipingram people are NOT citizens, People are defined as the sovereign. a citizen is someone who OWES HIS ALLEGIANCE to and may claim reciprocal protections from a government. a CITIZEN is a subject of (a SLAVE of) his government had has NO RIGHTS, only privileges granted to him by his overlord masters 07:44:23 solon.x10host.com 07:44:44 mark4: sovereign translate as up above. What do you mean exactly? 07:45:13 lol why am i not surprised mark4 is a sovereign citizen 07:45:25 im NOT a sovereign citizen, there is no such thing 07:45:44 im one of the People. NOT a citizen. the citizen is a creation of the 14th amendment 07:46:04 I thought it was a creation of the old Greek city states 07:46:28 Zarutian: look at the legal definition for a republic: Where the POWERS of sovereignty are VESTED in the people, who exercise those powers either DIRECTLY or indirectly through representatives. 07:46:51 and VESTED means "Having the character of giving the rights of absolute ownership" 07:47:17 not disagreeing btw, i just think it's hilarious how perfectly it fits. i guess if you make sense it one area, it follows that you'd make sense in another 07:47:18 mark4: oh, you mean, goverance. Self-rule etc. But I am still puzzled by the word sovereign being used in this sense 07:47:35 in the united states it was a creation of the federal government when they enacted the 14th amendment. btw, the constitution does NOT give the people any rights 07:47:51 sovereign == KING 07:48:22 The People of a state have every right that did formerly belong to the king by his prerotative. 07:49:04 mark4: yeah, so much I have gathered, that sovereign was used as synonym for kings, queens and emprors. 07:49:37 mark4: I agree about the 14th. In particular, I've never been able to convince myself that the Confederate states were outside the law when they seceded. 07:49:51 I don't see how the previous Constitution forbade that. 07:49:53 mark4: the people always had those rights. It just happended that those kings tried to convince peeps otherwise with violence. 07:50:27 KipIngram: it was perfectly legal to secede and the revolution was about lost tax revenue due to that act, NOT about the slaves. the slaves were never freeed 07:50:35 Zarutian: I agree. People do have rights. Some governments recognie them - some don't. And the ones that don't are just... wrong. 07:50:42 they were simply moved from private ownership to PUBLIC ownership under the 14th amendment 07:50:59 mark4: you a freeman on the land? 07:51:04 its my belief that the powers that be did not want the freed black man to be "We the People" so created the citizen 07:51:13 Right. I think the accurate historical analysis is that the United States invaded and conquered a legitimate foreign power. 07:51:16 im one of the People. do not need to argue that any further 07:51:39 KipIngram: thats how all nations start 07:52:28 mark4: nope some nations just come from similiar subcultures in adjenct countries. 07:53:12 mark4: a nation is first and foremost a cultural entity. 07:53:19 ok, well MOST then lol 07:53:43 16th amendment violates the fifth 07:53:45 without the 14th amendment the federal government has NO authority to tax an individual 07:54:01 it violates the NINTH 07:54:24 in fact we can obliterate 100% of the amendments and rely ONLY on the 9th and we are covered 07:54:39 mark4: some countries start by people going somewhere and buy complete alloidal title to territories nobody wants or the selling country needs to sell to get some restarting capital 07:54:40 i guess the point of the amendments was that they don't violate older ones, they override them 07:54:49 i never refer to protections of the 14th amenement, it does not protect me it divests me of my status as one of the People. i rely on the 9th 07:55:46 no provision of the constitution was designed to be without effect (marbury v. maddison). i.e. you canot enact a new amendment to over shadow another 07:55:56 the main purpose of the 14th IS to over shadow the 9thy 07:55:59 9th 07:55:59 are you talking about united states law? 07:56:12 do you know the difference between LAW and statute? 07:56:33 I thought the most significant aspects of the 14th was that it explicitly made states and localities subject to the Constitution. 07:56:35 statute can be repealed. LAW ca not 07:56:37 Which they were not, initially. 07:56:46 It was originally about the federal government only. 07:56:56 KipIngram: no - they already are subject to it. they simply weazle word their way ouyt 07:57:15 I'll need you to point out how (they were initially subject to it). 07:57:18 each state has its own constitution 07:57:28 I've heard the law there is bat shit crazy and it is better to keep away from usa 07:57:32 The original Constitution was a charter of the federal government, limiting its powers. 07:57:34 by entering into the union. the page I linked goes over that 07:57:34 That's all it was. 07:57:38 jackdaniel: good shout 07:57:51 Ok - I will look, but the argument will have to be good. 07:58:20 Can you post the link again? 07:58:59 Even better, though, would be to point out the wording in the Constituion that SAYS it applies to the states. 07:59:04 KipIngram: the bill of rights is about limiting it's power. 07:59:05 mark4: my question to you: can you succiently but perhaps coarsely describe the difference between common law (which iirc USA has) and civil law? 07:59:28 Fair enough, but the body of the document is about the mechanisms as to how the federal government would operate. 08:00:19 Zarutian: I think civil law isn't about laws per se at all - it's not about criminal actions. It's just about "disagreements" that have to be settled. 08:00:29 LAW is law. civil law is statute. statute can be repealed, LAW can not. statute needs to be written down to be enacted, LAW does NOT need to be written down 08:00:43 the magna carta was a codification of LAW as is the constituion. 08:00:44 And I think "common law" is the consistent patterns that emerge from those decisions - courts try to decide such cases in a way that's consistent with past rulings. 08:00:45 mark4: you an anti-federalist I take it 08:00:54 no im a federalist 08:01:09 you support federal government? 08:01:15 mark4: Ok, so you are saying that we likely call a lot of things "law" that should be called "statute." 08:01:25 KipIngram: but as I understand it from what I read is that "common law" arose from people settling disagreements in "common" courts, that is not the court of nobelmen such as kings. 08:01:31 i recognize the need for them. the page i link goes over that 08:02:06 KipIngram: Law has traditionally referred to "Common Law". we used to have "Suits in equity" and "Actions at law" 08:02:08 Zarutian: Ok, that could be, but we don't have any "nobility" recognized in the US. But "common law" does have roots in Britain, so you could be completely right. 08:02:23 one was to have the protections of statute, the other was to have the protections of lawa 08:02:26 l;aw 08:02:31 blargh i cant type 08:02:52 we DO have nobility in the united states. I am one of the People. so is the guy next to me 08:02:57 i have ALL rights. so does he 08:03:06 regarding the use of the word law: it irritates me that english does not have seperate words regarding stuff of legalis nature and stuff regarding natural principle, like Ohms or Newtons law 08:03:09 anything I do that I say is a right IS A RIGHT. unless I trespass on his rights 08:03:42 mark4: Right. I attach no "righteous significance" (not a good phrase) to government. Government is just people pooling their opinions, so to speak - it's not something "holy" or "special." 08:03:51 Mark's right about rights, you know. 08:03:51 It all starts with individuals. 08:03:54 Zarutian: we do but the problem is those definitions are constantly being changed to suit the bar corporation and its lust for power 08:03:57 Yes. 08:04:03 mark4: I was using the word nobelmen in the sense of brahmin, which is often used as an insult in India. 08:04:20 KipIngram: government is absolutely a requirement but the government we currently have is out of fucking control lol 08:04:36 mark4: bar corporation? what is that? some sort of entity that could be arbrited against? 08:04:38 solon.x10host.com covers this entire conversation in great detail 08:04:45 I don't believe something becomes "right" (in the sense of correct) just because it gets endorsed by some government process. A thing is either right, or it's wrong - and the government getting behind something wrong doesn't make it right. 08:04:48 is there a name for the stack operation ( c b a - c b a c) 08:04:56 the bar association is a private corporation,. utterly unregulated by the government 08:04:59 Usually not. 08:05:04 That would be 2 PICK 08:05:10 WilhelmVonWeiner: i think that is pluck 08:05:16 KipIngram: right is yet another word in English that got overloaded with too many meanings. 08:05:21 OVER is as deep as most Forths let you go with a single operation. 08:05:25 But pluck is a nice name. 08:05:34 I built those into my system down to depth 6. 08:05:39 i think in the 83 std that was a common definition 08:05:45 I'd call it 2@. 08:05:56 Or rather I *do* call it 2@. 08:05:57 2@ is for getting a 2variable 08:06:04 pick is N pick so 1 2 3 4 1 pick (is dup) 2 pick (is over) etc 08:06:08 3 pick is pluck 08:06:09 I don't have double precisions, so the name was available to me. 08:06:22 seems misleading but fair 08:06:30 I thought 0 PICK was DUP. 08:06:37 erm yea it is lol 08:06:39 And 1 PICK was OVER. 08:06:40 1 pick is over 08:06:45 off by one error lol 08:06:46 KipIngram: there is right, as in chirality (handedness), there is right as in water right or copy right that can be transfered etc, and there is rights as often described by various constitutions 08:07:05 Yeah, I meant right as in "proper." 08:07:26 For example, I question the propriety of government laws against drugs. 08:07:58 Why should the government control what I put in my body? 08:08:02 It's an overstep. 08:08:18 --- join: proteusguy (~proteus-g@cm-58-10-209-244.revip7.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 08:08:18 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 08:09:06 KipIngram: I am with you there. But I also think that imparement that does makes someone that takes such unfit to drive (that is dangerous if control of motor vechile or heavy machinery) should not be allowed at all. 08:09:08 I understand drugs ruin lives. But if there's even one person who could use them and not ruin his/her life, then he/she should have that right. 08:09:13 KipIngram: for the general protection of society, not an overstep 08:09:16 Weakness of others shouldn't negate that freedom. 08:09:22 ^ 08:09:32 Punish the CRIMES drug addicts commit. 08:09:45 When they commit them - before they commit them they've done nothing wrong. 08:09:48 or try to prevent the crimes from hapenning 08:09:53 prevention v. cure 08:10:14 except in this case the cure is total control over the import of those drugs 08:10:18 ^ disagree totally. Not ok. Slippery slope - once you step onto that slope you've opened the door to MASSIVE government oversight of your life. 08:10:19 which can never actually happen 08:10:33 agreed to a degree 08:10:35 `: PLUCK >R OVER R> SWAP ;` ? 08:10:47 If you retire too early, you might run out of money and have to be cared for by society. 08:10:50 "it is the office of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction" <-- a judges edict 08:10:53 maybe society should decide when you get to retire. 08:10:58 That's EXACTLY the same sort of issue. 08:11:15 If you retire early and run out of money: tough luck 08:11:19 If you eat badly, you might have medical problems and require public health care. 08:11:21 not my job to be taxed to pay for you 08:11:25 So we should control how you eat. 08:11:27 WilhelmVonWeiner: thats one definition suer 08:11:31 mark4: just wow. What happened to that judge later? 08:11:41 another woudl be a coded definition that puts SP in some index register and offsets 08:12:02 WilhelmVonWeiner: Agree. But that's kind of my point - us committing to a welfare state type thing should not extend additional controls over people. 08:12:10 no idea how that works, I don't know much about assembler 08:12:18 thats ALL judges. they are constantly trying to increase their own powers and that is considered a good trait of a judge by the bar corporation 08:12:27 Yes. 08:12:52 But anyway, my point here is that individual rights should be maximized - not curtailedd at every opportunity for the convenenice of everyone else. 08:12:52 i once hard of a good example of how to subjugate the people. how do you tame wild pigs? 08:13:03 You feed them. 08:13:06 1: put corn down on the ground where the pigs might go. 08:13:17 2: build one wall and keep adding more corn every day 08:13:27 Yes - right there with you. 08:13:29 3: build more walls over time till you have 4 walls and a gate 08:13:32