[Info-vax] HP stopping VMS paper documentation ?

[AEF]

On Dec 9, 2:13 am, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh... at telia.com>
wrote:
> Fritz Wuehler wrote 2011-12-09 01:29:
>
> >> In article<4edf3847$0$2098$c3e8da3$a9097... at news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei<jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.ca>  writes:
>
> >>> A government running puplic transit or national railways or the post
> >>> office is not really socialism because it is a basic service like roads
> >>> and water which are expected to be provided by government and which do
> >>> not interest private enterprise.
>
> > Well go and read the Constitution. The federal government has very specific
> > authority ("enumerated powers"). Any thing else is resevered to the people
> > or the States. It turns out "postal roads" *are* within the purview. Public
> > transit is not. When the federal government regulates (our definition, not

I really don't think Amtrak is just one step away from socialism! It
is, however, a major cause of train delays on the Northeast Corridor
line.

> > the Constitution's) anything they weren't chartered to regulate, they start
> > down the slippery slope of socialism. Welcome to today.
>
> Are you realy saying that the US constitution in some way is a rule
> to decide what is socialism or not ? Of course it isn't. Those that

Of course it isn't. It's about democracy, law, powers of, and
(*specific*) limits on, government, rights of the people, and so on.
Yes, there's "limits on government", but none of these have to do with
socialism. Even so, there are many other evils possible by gov't
without such limits.

> wrote that document had no clue about socialism.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't even matter. Maybe I missed it, but I don't
recall anything particular about state ownership of means of
production in the document. If there is, please post it.

>
> Thinking that something written over 200 years ago has to be
> rellevant for the world of today, has it's problems. Things change.

Say what? Like another poster said, human nature hasn't changed that
much. The U.S. Constitution is quite relevant. What major changes or
omissions would you make?

Newton's work is from more than 200 years ago and is quite relevant,
both in physics and math. OK, that's science, but your criterion
seemed to be simply being too old. No, relativity and quantum
mechanics didn't overthrow Newton's laws; it only limited their domain
to the slow (compared to the speed of light) and macroscopic (large
compared to molecules). In fact, quantum mechanics essentially becomes
classical mechanics when systems are "large enough" (macroscopic).

On the other hand, maybe you're just goading us.

>
> The US constitution was probably a big-deal at the time when it
> was written, but probably less rellevant today. It was a very
> different time.

It's always been a big deal, and will be for some time to come.

[. . . trimming in progress here . . . ]

AEF