Slashdot Mirror
How Washington Will Shape the Internet
WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, 'The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond. It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street and the powerful legislators whose favor they curry.' The article examines several pieces of legislation and lobbying initiatives which are poised to affect you and your rights online. Topics covered include Net Neutrality, fiber to the home, the Universal Service Fund, codecs, and WiFi bandwidth usage." From the article: "After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace."
.....we won't see ONE permissive regulation. We'll see MANY restrictive regulations. If lawmaking comes to the internet, I for one am looking forward to the next big thing.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
If by "shape" you mean "fuck up," then you're on to something.
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
I don't think it's too cynical to say that's probably intentional. Flag burning seems to be one of those hot-button issues that conservative politicians trot out when they want to (a) drum up votes or (b) distract people from other issues. (Liberals have their own hot-button issues, though these days the conservatives seem to be punching them just fine from the other side.)
It's interesting that now that the Internet is becoming a credible alternative to mass media for news and commerce that the government is regulating it big time.
--
make install -not war
but the US implying laws on internet usage will not completely change the internet. The rest of the world won't just follow along, and you'll find hi-tech companies moving to companies that are more forgiving to their line of business.
I interned for a congressman last year. My former boss is in charge of a lot of the tech stuff coming out, but I can tell you that most congressmen could not care less about most tech. For example, I heard a congressman ranting about how consumers don't have a right to choice in telco providers. I have also seen that many policies are nothing more than clunky attempts to maintain the status quo of regulation in an era of never before seen change. It is nice to see government trying hard to catch up with the times, but the minority of uber-users, hackers, and /.ers need to watch out to maintain what we love doing. I do not see any major problems (like China's level of Internet control) coming, but there are issues that could prove quite annoying at least. The most important thing that we can do is vote. Early and often. :)
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Your Republican Congress wants to remix the Internet.
--
make install -not war
But I thought the place to be if you wanted to make a difference in Internet legislation was out in San Francisco?
That's what the EFF told me...
Hey, wait a minute! Didn't the EFF *used* to be based in DC, but then moved to the west coast? That can't be right, makes no sense, I must be confused...
Anways, I guess we're all lucky these guys stayed behind.
I *really* *hate* CoSs.
... so I figured "What have I got to lose?"
... and dogs will eat their own puke!
The WalMart down the street was selling Mini Church of Scientology Trolls (CoSTrolls) for 2 cents a piece. That was even less than the 5 cents a piece I paid for those monkeys
So I bought 250 CoSTrolls for $5.00. I mean, what's 5 bucks, right? What could possibly go wrong?
I took my 250 CoSTrolls home. I have a big car. One of them insisted on driving. Its name was L. Ron Hubbard. It was retarded, even for a troll. In fact, none of them were really bright, and now that I had them outside in the daylight, it was obvious that they were all "more than a few bricks short of a full load." They kept punching themselves in their genitals, saying something about removing "body thetans," whatever those are. I laughed. Then they tried to remove my body thetans. I stopped laughing.
I herded them into the basement. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They stopped punching themselves, and started to screech, hurl themselves off of boxes at high speeds and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour. Then they began pulling the hair out of each other. It quickly became a mess. Oh, and nobody told me that CoSTrolls aren't toilet trained. I googled and yahoo'd for "toilet training CoSTrolls", but all that came back was "never been done" and "C0S iz t3h 5ux0rz."
The novelty of having 250 CoSTrolls had worn off.
The CoSTrolls got out of the basement and kept trying to use my computers, even though everyone knows that CoSTrolls can't use real technology. They kept on, though, and started filing lawsuits against everyone who didn't like CoSTrolls. So my ISP cut me off. I hate CoSTrolls.
I had to find another ISP. And the stupid CoSTrolls used the connection to steal IRS documents. I got kicked off that one, too. I went from high-speed cable to ADSL to dialup to - well, lets just say that TCP/IP over a clothesline really sucks. I can only post when my neighbors are doing their laundry. I feel SO low having to steal bandwidth through the McPhersons' underwear flapping in the breeze!
And speaking of my neighbors, one of them came over. Her name was Lisa. Two CoSTrolls named McCabe and Minkoff attacked her. They bit her like hungry cockroaches. She left bruised and exhausted. Now the neighbors use the laundromat to dry their clothes.
Did I mention that I hate CoSTrolls?
At least by now I knew why the CoSTrolls were so cheap - nobody would want one. All they do is sit around and make rambling random noise and emit noxious vapours, and excrete stuff that even the dogs don't want to sniff
I didn't know what to do - I was at wits end. So I went out to the local Home Depot and bought some muriatic acid, the stuff you use on concrete. I took one of the CoSTrolls and dipped it into the muriatic acid. The acid turned into goo. I poored some on the sidewalk outside, and it quickly melted the ice. Unfortunately, it also completely removed the top inch of concrete. The city had to replace the sidewalk. I got the bill last week. I hate CoSTrolls.
I decided to kill them all and throw them in the garbage. Do you have any idea how HARD it is to kill a CoSTroll? They're worse than Microsoft! You can drop a load of bricks on them, squish them flatter than a penny after the train's gone over it, and next morning they're back at it again, spitting, being mean, and just looking butt-ugly as usual.
So I tried to have a garage sale. I TRIED to make them look half-way decent, but CoSTrolls are like SCO stock - no amount of lipstick will make that pig look good. Not only did I not sell a single CoSTroll; the police gave me a fine for disturbing the peace. All the kids in the neighborhood are having nightmares, and the school has to have a psychologist (at least until the CoSTrolls ran her out of town) on staff full-time to deal with all the trauma th
... The US has utlimate control seeing as Al Gore invented that new fangled contraption called the intraweb...
In all seriousness, we think the great wall of china is bad... we haven't seen anything yet
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
But they also hate us for our Internets.
"The ministry of communication is duty-bound to make the use of the Internet impossible."
- Taliban official, less than three weeks before 9/11.
Hey, be thankful that Congress doesn't exactly turn on a dime. We got to keep sending Internets to each other for another 5 years before they pulled the plug.
I despise Verizon, I hate Comcast, those are my only options for landline based services. Now, If verizon is allowed to start sending media down that fibre line, I think it should be fair that any other Company or Startup (new Media Broadcaster??) should be allowed to do the same to complete, unlike cable, who like to hoard their lines and not allow anyone else access to them. Also, last I checked, doesn't the gov subsidise the majority of the costs to lay the initial infrastructure, so the telcos should not be whining about incuring such major costs. I could be wrong on that last point though.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
This article was broad, but shallow. It buys into and repeats a whole lot of common misconceptions. For example, it phrases the net neutrality debate as wanting to charge different prices for "complex" and "simple" data, using VoIP and e-mail as examples. This is completely wrong. This is about charging money to people who are not your network peers for not intentionally slowing down traffic from particular, wealthy, people, groups, or organizations despite the fact that that traffic is otherwise identical to other traffic. Networks 5 peers away want to extort money from google for not intentionally crippling traffic to them and not to MSN search or Yahoo.
They also parrot the whole DRM as an anti-piracy measure. Everyone knows it fails miserably in that area. It is a content access control, so they can use differential pricing using regions and so they can charge you for the same content for different locations and devices. Anyone can point a camcorder at a TV screen and then upload it to the Web or make DVDs. Then, the masses can download it or buy it. What they can't do is easily move music they paid for from their Creative player to their iPod, car stereo, and CD player.
It is pretty sad that marketing dollars can speak loudly enough that even supposed technically competent reporters just spew out the same crap that they have heard over and over again. What ever happened to critical thinking and investigation?
"After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet -- big time."
Then != than you morons.
On "Net Neutrality:"
...If the Googles of the world win, the network owners will undoubtedly figure out some other way to raise prices.
No matter which way it goes, it means a new element of government regulation. And as far as who pays to build out the networks -- in the end, one way or another, most of the costs will still be passed on to the consumer.
It pits network owners such as Verizon and AT&T against the companies who buy their bandwidth, such as Google and Amazon, and it hinges on whether the network owners can charge extra to deliver certain kinds of bits -- bill more for streaming video, for example, than simpler data like text e-mail.
My question is this, if it's simply about building and upgrading networks and the costs will be ultimately be passed on to the customer, why not just raise rates to those that purchase bandwidth accross the board? Why add the overhead of lobbying Congress to COMPLICATE the process of selling bandwidth?
The Internet is already the most dissappointing thing to come along since cable TV. Excessive monitoring, taxation, and regulation will just cause people to find other things to do with their time. Maybe regulation can be a good thing after all...
--- I'd rather live with false hope than with false despair.
Its a very worrying time (as someone who makes his lving doing web-related stuff) when it comes to the net and government regulation. Its frought on all sides with peril - government letting corporations do whatever they want can be just as dangerous as governments coming in and dictating what goes on. There is a narrow path on which government can walk and not hurt innovation and consumers. I dont think they'll be able to pull it off.
What astounds me is how bad google, MS, etc. are at lobbying. It seems like google and MS should be winning and not losing (as my current perception leads me to believe).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
...... Someone says "I for one welcome our new overlords," but I guess they've been around since 9/11 haven't they and this is just an extension of that.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.
/. writup this week. It is truly shocking that more Americans have heard about an issue that has existed many times longer longer than the word "cyberspace" than the recent goings on in congress related to the latter.
Congratulations, this is the single most useless comment in a
Yes, more people should be aware of and care about this, but this is a ridiculous way to word it. Also in the news, more people have opinions on school choice than IPv6 adoption. Shocking!
Back to the issue at hand. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that our elected representatives will have a say in this any more than any other issue. The reshaping of the internet will be done SOLELY by Microsoft, AT&T/SBC, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Hollywood, and the usual suspects. They will be writing the laws and casting the votes. There is no reason to even pretend otherwise anymore. Sure they will be be doing this via proxy with the elected representatives, but those reps (almost without exception) have no clue what they are talking about and just repeat the talking points given to them by their corporate masters. These issues will be determined exclusively by how money and favors are allocated.
I know as Americans it feels better to pretend that corruption and corporate ownership are the exceptions in government, but to do so hurts as a nation. EVERY person currently in congress has been bought and sold to a special interest or company (no expections, don't even try to parade your favorite one out and claim them to be virtuous and pure, you are wrong). When it comes down to it, they will ALL vote they way they are told and the opinion of the voters matters not one bit.
Finkployd
Dear Legislator/Senator/Governor/President/Court Memeber/.....,
PLEASE LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE. You will only screw it up, if you start messing with it.
Thanks,
Archangel Michael (on behalf of most of the Slashdot crowd)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
WORRY. DETAILS IN LETTER
Or so the introduction appears. The Gucci-clad evil people our out to steal the Internet (and Christmas).
"Reshape the Internet" sounds much like the recent "Great Internet plug-pulling by Congress" and the not so recent "Vote or Die!" attempts at fear-mongering.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's all part of God's plan to move all successful business to India.
Aggressive telecom lobbying is the main reason that the consumer broadband market is not competitive right now. Most places in America have at most two choices for broadband. After seven years of having broadband (A LONG TIME when talking tech) prices, performance and choice have yet to improve significantly, with the exception of "special introductory rates" that revert back to the same high prices when the introductory period is over.
And don't try to blame the Democrats. This is bought and paid for with large cash donations, the vast bulk of which go to Republican lawmakers, who close the loop by hiring K Street lobbyists as staff. You can try to deflect blame by suggesting that if Dems were in power they'd be getting the millions, but that ignores the reality that they're not, and Republicans are the ones ramming sweetheart legislation through Congress for Bellsouth. Republican corruption in action.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Once again we have a bunch of clueless fools that may destroy something wonderful we've created.
The solution is to remove them from the picture. Vote them out.
If they won't let themselves be voted out, kill them.
You think I'm kidding, what do YOU call someone who won't leave power?
A tyrant
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
. . . to route the entire internet around the USA? I am not knowledgeable on the details of the functioning of the internet, so I ask. Basically, I am just wondering if it is possible.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Soon, the internet will be rendered a privilage in which you need a license to access. We've seen it happen with roads, its only a matter of time before it happens to the net. Also prepare for internet taxes.
Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?
When law making comes to the internet, another internet will be invented, just not anytime soon. My advice is, start the planning stages for the next internet, and then when there is the will to bring it forward, bring it forward. Let's just admit once and for all that it must have been Al Gore who gave us the internet, he did not invent it, but he handed it so us. Before that, the masses didnt know what the internet is, and the masses won't know what the next internet us when us geeks invent or find it, hey we mmight already have it.
through force of numbers. Adopt strong encryption whenever and wherever you can, hide and obfuscate to maintain privacy at all times, jealously guard what you do. Insist on maintaining your right to privacy and communication, your right to speech at all times. And as a helper, stop being frigging schmucks (you KNOW who you are) and abusing your speech by being purposely nasty and provocative for the sake of attention. SAVE IT for the real issues that actually matter and do not squander your credibility before the public. If we the Internet connected are going to withstand government diddling, we better be able to lay out our positions, intents, beliefs, and methods clearly and make it clear as well that we will not back down and will not roll over.
Or we can go play RPGs all day and let them do whatever they feel like. Given that each side of the political spectrum are equally suspect and likely to screw us over (leftists in the name of political correctness and orthodoxy, rightists in the name of their view of morality and patriotism) and both will sell us out to whoever will pay money to their campaigns, merely voting people in or out won't cut it. Getting out and telling them what we believe and what we will stand for or not is what we have to do and we cannot back down.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Burn flags as you please, but touch my net and DIE!
Unfortunately, as long as there are more flag-wavers than geeks, the world will continue to spin the way it does.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
to avoid damaged segments, such as any US restrictions.
In an interconnected world where China has more Net users than the US, and so does the EU, one country standing in defiance of the Net is like a small earthen dam trying to constrain the massive tsunami that will either go around it, go over it, or crush it beneath its massive weight of inevitability.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Unfortunately, most people aren't going to care about the Internet so long as they can still access their favorite sites, which are often very mainstream. As long as they can access those sites - and the less they pay the better in their eyes - then most of them are going to want to go down that path as well, and Congress will be happy to oblige.
Oh, look. Online fraud is the only thing they're not planning on strangling in the crib. Shock, surprise...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Discussing politics is fine, but whats the point in discussing national politics? All of these issues are local, REALLY local.
If you don't want big federal government, why did you vote for it? This goes for Democrats and Republicans. Federal government is big under EITHER party. Most of us internet geeks seem to be libertarians, and as a result we can't feel comfortable in either party.
In the Democratic party of old ideas, we hear them discussing going back to the days of FDR, and that is completely unrealistic. The Republican party always talks about tax cuts, and smaller government, but somehow government is bigger than ever?
I think we need to drastically cut taxes, maybe go with just the sales tax, or even the negative income tax. There are a lot of ways to reform the tax system that will make EVERYONE happy. Once the tax system is reformed, and you can get more of your own money, that is how we all benefit. Social programs are a thing of the past, they worked when the population was smaller globally and nationally, they worked when we werent consuming this much, but time is running out and some changes have to be made.
You and I may never live to see social security, so why fight to save it if by the time we get it the world isnt going to exist and none of us will be here? I'd rather recieve the tax cuts and invest it.
This is why we need people who understand technology to run for office. This is one reason I am running and I hope you either run yourself or support a candidate who does have a clue. Don't leave these decisions to the people who think the Internet is a "series of tubes".
Not offtopic, mods. That was not only a hilarious take on "I like monkeys", but also made a point about how Scientology has abused the justice system to limit free speech against it on the internet. Like when an AC posted a Scientology document that could be found anywhere a few years ago and the CoS lawyers bullied CmdrTaco into deleting the thread.
More information on this topic can be found at the Wikipedia page.
The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond.
...
Topics covered include Net Neutrality, fiber to the home, the Universal Service Fund, codecs, and WiFi bandwidth useage.
Codecs and WiFi bandwidth usage are more of a shaping force than Microsoft and Google? Please tell me this is some sort of twisted joke. Net neutrality is obviously an important issue, but the "most potent forces" behind the Internet today are still the companies that drive it.
FUD!!!!!
This type of issue, requires a lot more creative touch in my opinion, than simply coming up with old ideas. We need revolutionary ideas to save the internet, and if you do not have them, then dedicate your brain power into creating the next internet. I do not think video franchising is the kind of idea that is revolutionary. Open Source was a revolutionary idea, maybe we should contact Richard Stallman and see what he has to say. Maybe we need a new set of internet protocols? The wiring is not the issue here, the issue here is an issue of how the internet is modeled.
The next internet for sure won't be modeled anything like this one. The client server model is what lead to this. When you model the internet in a slave/master type of frame work, the result you get is a top down internet hierarchy. Beyond the protocols, the technology itself is also top down. I think all of this will change eventually when the technology adapts and becomes smaller, but this issue is a lot more complicated than simply, legal. In fact, legalese language is meaningless in the long term. It's always about design.
If you do want to think of legal language, the language itself has to be strategicially designed. The invention of the internet will go down in history as being as important as the invention of the constitution or the bill of rights. Of course it was not going to last forever, but you have to put the internet itself into historical context.
One word: pretzel
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Here's my attempt to rock the universe although the idea may not be original, I'm trying to universify it. It's called the "No Limit" label. Just take the GNU license and port it over to everything else. Music Record Label: No Limit Sounds, Co. - Specializing in letting you buy and copy as much as you damn please. Movie Studio: No Limit Moving Picture, Co. - Specializing in letting you distribute 'fantastic' independent films across the globe. Technology: Freedasonic, Co. - HD-NL (Hi-Def No Limit player) Let's you play HI-DEF audio and video without requiring a central server to be pinged. Hell, it records too, so you can play on yout LHD-NL (Linux HD-NL). Technology: noLipod - play all that music published by No Limit Sounds, Co. If you invent technology with 'no limits' on what you can do, and easily uses and ports 'no limit' media of any type, or if you are an artist, or are funding your own independent film... throw your "No Limit" label indicating your work can be freely put everywhere without fear of fines or imprisonment. I will not buy Blu-Ray or HD-DVD... I'm waiting for my "No Limit" player recorder that will play "No Limit" HD content. I will not buy BMG, Universal, etc... only "No Limit" music. I will take every great song ever written, strip the lyrics, and put my own in... and call it my own ;)
I will not vote for any politician until he can come on TV and say, "You know, I don't know the answer to that question. Let me do the appropriate research, and I'll get back with you." INSTEAD OF MAKING UP A LIE.
That's it, I'm fed up with corporations. I'm moving to Cambodia.
The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond. It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street
Because none of the K Street lobbyists are funded by the Google-plex or the Redmond money machine.
It should read "How Washington is Selling out the internet"
But since Washington only sells out the general public these days to the whores, opps I mean corporations, this title it probably redundant.
Like the parent troll?
If you had any idea how this world works, you'd see that the economy is global, and when the economy is global, what is happening in the US is happening everywhere. The new laws get tested on the US population first, and then exported to our trading partners. The countries which don't accept our rules, well we know what happens to them. So I don't see your point.
I'm not saying the world population will go along with it, but the decision makers are all on the same team, and all profit together. Do you really think that lawmakers in the US are going to pass laws that the world leaders do not accept? The laws that get passed are precisely the laws that world leaders want passed.
Global opinion is not the same as Global leadership or Global decision making, or Global economics. The global economy is somewhat planned out in advance, the rules are decided on, there is a world bank, a world trade organization, and economic leaders meet to discuss these topics. So if we are discussing it now, they discussed it months or years ago and made decisions on it already.
Really...the anything goes wild wild west anarchy internet is a *complete total threat to governments all over the planet and large corporations*. Everything about the current and past model is a threat to them. It's a threat to their rule, (they call it governing but it really is rule-technofuedalism) a threat to their money(your money is their money by default), the way they want power over you politically or economically, etc. All of it. So..apply occam's razor and some extrapolation-what do you think will happen? What this article says-and more.
It is about inevitable they will slice it up into something that looks like a combo of your cellphone bill and cable TV bill. You'll be seeing a large number of "nets" and be forced into "subscribing" to one or another-think a lot of different closed up walled garden type AOL experiences. And be paying through the nose to go outside that area-or be denied totally. And they'll be completely happy if 95% get herded into their control more, they'll pick off the other 5% at their leisure and when it suits their purposes. No one is completely leet enough to avoid it if they get a notion to mess up your day. No one.
He speaks the truth.
Armies of lobbyists and lawyers go into the Rayburn building and across the hill to cow legislators. It's not a partisan issue-- it's a Jack Welch/We're Big And Here's Our Army To Prove It posture.
Look at where the lobbying dollars and perks are spent, and by whom. Then mod the parent up as he/she's absolutely on target. This isn't about common sense, this is about re-writing the Telecom Act of 1935 (as amended) and pulling back decades of consumer-focused legal decisions and legislation to one specific end:
THE TELCOs. IT's THE MONEY, STUPID. FOLLOW IT AND FIND THE ABYSS OF YOUR ONCE FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Once the internet was a freedom loving community of like minded, responsible researchers and educators with an ingrained sense of 'nettiquete'. Then Al Gore and company turned it into a business superhighway, from which it quickly deteriorated into a wretched hive of scum and villany. Now, soon the Marines are going to invade and impose marshall law, punishing the innocent along with the phishers and spammers.
Where shall we flee to find our next Shangri La, nestled hidden in an uncharted valley in Colorado where John Galt and talented friends can persue their happiness free from the choking stranglehold of the inept hoards and their socialist politicians?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
By default you have a right to do practically anything as long as it does not infringe on another's right. To have permissive regulation is self-defeating, as the Internet is already in a state of virtual (HAH!) anarchy. The only thing laws can effectively do IS restrict your freedom.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
You can vote as much as you want, I'll tell you this. If you are a consumer, you only have the right to consume. Thus the label consumer, because you consume and consume. Your opinions do not matter, if your opinions mattered the politicians would be meeting with you and asking you for your opinions.
If you really worked for a politician like you say, you'd know that the average voter has little to no influence on what deals are made between leaders. If you want in, then get in, join the club, work for the company, invest! If you want, start an investment club.
Just talking about politics will change absolutely nothing. Politicians do not care about our opinions. The have experts to tell them what to care about, they have pollsters to tell them what our opinions are, and they can shape our opinions when they don't like what our opinions are. In the end, it's ultimately just about money. You can buy influence, you can buy politicians, you can buy just about any favor. It's about favors.
Teleco companies are VERY VERY powerful, they have infinite leverage over any politician. The telecos know everything, and had these abilities before the whole NSA wiretap scandal, so what politician is going to challenge the big telcos, or big oil? I wouldnt, you wouldnt, and a politician wouldnt for the same reasons we wont.
The best thing you can do is work with these big powerful corporate entities, and try to make policies which in a give and take fashion, where you make deals. If you expect to be a politician, it's a dirty business, it's a VERY dirty business, but ultimately it is a business, and the way to be successful is to do business with big business.
If you actually think you can be involved in politics, and that Google has more influence than telephone and oil companies, you are insane. The hardware companies have more influence than the software companies. The phone companies have more influence than the hardware companies. The energy companies have influence over ALL companies.
If you were smart, take an economics class and see how society is organized.
The telcos seem to be setting themselves up for lawsuits down the road. Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, said today in a press release that all of this is about "hypothetical business plans" and thus shouldn't be addressed now.
If Net Neutrality isn't addressed proactively then we will see it end up in the courts where some activist judge could potentially really mess up the internet.
The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the telcos to come out and openly debate the merits of their Tiering plans instead of using front groups and lobbyist, short of that the next best thing might be some form of legislation.
But the worst thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for lawsuits.
Do servers have owners?
It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street and the powerful legislators whose CURRY they FAVOR.
Listen to 3M. They wisely suggested killing "Net Neutrality" and simply continuing on. Does anybody think that the teleco's can really pull off a 2-tiered internet without legislation? They would go under. Then somebody else would buy up the lines and do the internet right. The only way to make a 2-tiered internet is with the gov's help. So kill all the new internet regulations, including net neutrality, and the world will go on, and the internet will grow.
Washington should not shape the Internet. (Without using all the vitriolic statments or acrimony to say this:) the basic issue is that Washington is politicians and bureaucrats - they don't really understand the fundamentals behind Internet technology or its ebb and flow.
Business (particularly, well-funded business) has always had the ear of our bureaucrats - they're called lobbyists. In general, the Telcos (and other communications giants) are very good at lobbying. As with any business, they are looking out for themselves.
I believe that it is incumbent upon the public to help Washington understand what is at stake, and what is realistic about that which is being whispered in the bureaucrats' ears.
As we interact with others, we should express ourselves, and perhaps enlist others to help Washington understand what is truly at stake.
Said a little differently, I think the technologically-inclined should get involved and help keep the "train from going off track."
A Passionate Independent Musician
"Can you please give me an example of a technology NOT vulnerable to governmental interference?"
You may wish to compare and contrast the evolution of the domain namespace and the usenet namespace.
Need Mercedes parts ?
$
(When you find him, let me know...)
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
And it's crap like that that pisses me off. Hell, I'm patriotic. On 9/11, we flew the biggest damned flag we could find. It was probably one of the biggest in the state, and this is a pretty damn patriotic state. I invented the red, white & blue ribbon you see everywhere and helped publicize it (I'm reasonably sure that several people thought of it at the same time, but I was among the first and did so well before the news networks adopted it on 9/12).
But dammit, if you want to burn a flag, that's your right. You should be able to express your disagreement with the country and where it's headed, particularly when it's been so hell-bent on screwing all of us over right now. God knows, I feel like I have to wear a bag over my head when I admit that I was once a Republican, before I saw just how little respect the party had for the people here.
So the proper solution to the flag burning problem is to make the USA a respectable country again, where people don't want to burn our flag because they're too damn proud of the freedom it represents. Which means, of course, that we first need to take that freedom back!
Flag-burning and 'family values' sure, but stem cells? Does anyone honestly believe forcing to scientists to only use twenty odd mouse-cell infested cell lines (if they want federal funding) is just a wedge issue? Bush has vowed to issue his *first* veto if the new bill easing current restrictions goes through. You know, coz he's compassionate like that.
You can tell me destroying a few cells is a deep "ethical" problem if that pleases you, but it's silly to claim that restricting / allowing one of the more promising scientific technologies around simply doesn't matter.
..even with the governments "neglect". As soon as the utter wankers in power start meddling with anything good they just end up screwing it all up. Politicians hold the posts they do because they're completely incapable of holding down a real job. Example #1, the most famous moron of all time, George Bush. A trail of failed companies behind him, yet he's trusted to run the biggest country on Earth (of couse, we know he doesn't get to make any real decisions as that would be madness, but he profits from his role as an asshole).
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
An excerpt from "Senator Stevens: How the Internet Works" at dslreports.com
"They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
And these guys are writing the laws.
I thought it was a good idea
We can hope that the various countries will have permeable borders...but look at AOL if you want to see how this is likely to work out. AOL *without* an intrusive internet drawing it's customers away.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Many things are wrong with the political process, in this instance as in all others. But the particular one that is burning me up right now is that both sides of the net neutrality issue are positing a false dichotomy.
c y-and-privacy/net-neutrality/) -- it is possible to design a system whereby:
g islative-language-for-tariff-rebate-passthrough/), and the technical requirements aren't forbidding either.
As I've documented elsewhere -- I hope convincingly (http://www.monashreport.com/category/public-poli
* Telcos get to charge for QOS
* Consumers may have to pay for QOS
* Information providers can subsidize consumers' QOS payments
* Even so, there is very little risk of information providers being discriminated against by telcos
In fact, it's a really simple to design such a system conceptually (http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/26/simple-le
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
Sorry, but prior knowledge of how government regulation works, it's all or none. You can NEVER EVER EVER EVER have partial regulation. Once the government has something to feed on, it finds a way to grow and expand like some parasite/fungus. You see, most of us THINK government is to serve the population when in fact it's just an excuse to serve itself. When shit does hit the fan however, the "problem" is patched with even more regulation further compounding the issue even more. Case in point: look at our current tax system in place. Totally micromanaged to hell. Even the FCC has grown way beyond its original purpose.
I'm sorry, but I now take an extremist view. No goverment regulation is good regulation. I'll pay the price of fraud, spamming, and phishing in order to keep the net free. We all make sacrifices for the greater good, and this is mine.
Life is not for the lazy.
if they shut down free and open net access, we'll just have to fall back on an open, decentralized, reputation-driven model like FidoNet
Update it peer-to-peer wifi with IP-level packet incryption, and it could be nearly as fast and certain;y more secure than the current net.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
Master P might take offense to your idea.
This comment was randomly generated by a school of piranhas chewing on the PCB of a Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially...
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Damn, Its almost even funnier reading it than watching it. 10 minute Audio Link http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
that the internet exists outside of the US of A already, right?
As important an issue as net nutrality is, and as much as is will affect the internet, it will hardly matter to people in say, the EU, where many lawmakers are moving away from internet regulation.
Just a point, is all.
Anyone read about this scandal here through Teletruth ? This is both shocking and makes me sick. Why hasnt the government done ANYTHING for high speed internet at a relatively fair price? Why is it that we lack innovation in this area? In most places that either have DSL or cable you usually have a few DSL providers but hardly ever if any, but one choice if you go the cable route. I have Comcast and there isnt any cable company within 25 miles of here I get 5 mbps down and 386k up for $42.95 a month. Either i want the 45 mbps or i want a check for $2,000 US as stated from a low estimate of how much we have paid in but have got nothing in return..
I googled (yes, verb) Master P and came across a Rapper from "No Limit" records... ROTF!! Very intresting. Thanks for the 411.
Yes, yes, we're all horribly oppressed and the big bad companies run everything and there's NOTHING we can do, citizens and elected officials DON'T MATTER, it's all companies running the world don't you know.
Right? WRONG. The greatest victory of the special interests was in making people like you think you don't matter. So you sit at home in your basement, patting yourself on the back on how clear-thinking and level-headed you are to know that you can't make a difference.
It's utter bullshit! There are literally thousands of examples where citizen action overrode the desires of corporate interests. Do you have weekends? Do you have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe? Do you know any kids forced to work in factories at age 13? Do your phone calls go through to the people you're calling, even if you're bitching about the phone company? Do you have the right to put up a Web site called "FordSucks.com"? Do you know what the ingredients are in your Cheerios? Can you find out how much GE spent on lobbying last year? Etc.
I don't really buy into your defeatist fantasy, so I think I'm going to go call and write to my members of Congress, I'm going to go give some money to SaveTheInternet.com, and I'm going to encourage all my friends and family to do the same--taking the time to explain the issues to them so they know what's at stake. It's harder than being smug on the couch, and I recognize that I'm damaging my cynical smart guy street cred, but darn it I just can't seem to stop caring about the world around me.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
We (America) needs to shift priorities. There are too many priorities in the wrong things. The last election was won by Bush because of something as stupid as gay marriage. Some where along the line America has lost it's way and priorities shifted. Why are athletes, actors, actresses, ceo's, etc make insane amounts of money..where the people who actually do real work and benefit society make squat. Tell me why these people get paid millions to do very little amounts of work? Our system has become a two party system that just doesn't work any more. American's are fooled when going to the elections because there really is no choice in who they have to vote. Election campaigns have grown to be a huge shit fest on each other and they don't focus on things like what they can do to help society, not of just the US but of the world. There are too many rich, ignorant, selfish people in our government today. It isn't about serving the people any more. It is about what bids can I get, or how many votes I can get with the signing of this bill. It is absolutely appauling.
I would like to see our government completely wiped out from top to bottom and start from a bunch of young people who actually do give a shit about our country and our future. There is a huge damn generational gap that is happening. All the old people are making decisions that they have no idea what the consequences will be or they just don't care completely because they will be dead by the time those consequences happen (ie. global warming, internet, pirating, etc.)
The problem with America is that there is too much business. Because people are rich, they seem to have the most pull, which is bullshit because being rich doesn't make you intelligent. Too many things get passed through our congress and our senate because these assholes don't read anything, why? because they are on their damn big ass boats fishing or doing something other than coming up with new ways to help society. I hope all of our politicians burn in hell if there is one...because they are all evil....every single one of them. No one has the balls to stick up for what is right any more.
You know, we could of have been atleast one step closer to getting a better energy source. You take the worlds top scientists and stick them in a lab and give them whatever they want, and you will have your new, cleaner, better energy. How do you think the atom bomb was made? exactly the same way. We could of spent that $300 billion it is costing us for the fuckin retarded ass war in Iraq for R&D of new technology to HELP society on a global level instead of hurting society. I will be damn surprise if humans will make it another 100 years because of the retarded people in high up places will do something like nuke another country, which will set off a huge train wreck through out the world. How do we have the power to wipe the human race over and over again, and the person at the helm is no other than the guy who choked on a pretzel, the guy who fumbles words constantly, the guy who says he will not change his path even though everyone says he is a moron and he is wrong, the guy who probably doesn't know what 10 x 10 is?
Something needs to be done. We really need a good revolution of our government. Even though it won't happen, we really need one. This is what our second amendment right is for, to stand up against this bullshit when our government gets out of hand. Hell I am sure some of our military would even fight for the people, well whats left of it here in the US. I honestly don't think America could take another huge attack on American soil, and it shouldn't. Too many people in America are comfortable in their life driving their damn H3 hummers and as long as they can have their gas we are alright. I won't even go into all the BS oil and how that is going to end. America better get its act together or it will end up a 3rd world country in no time. And it all starts now with this damn goverment we have. This government has shifted America in a dir
The Virgin company, as well as Google, seems to be a bit of a rogue. I bet if things get too bad here, Virgin and/or Google will offer internet services, as things won't be bad anywhere else in the world.
Some of these people have gathered and joined forces to build their own version of the Internet. An Internet for the people and by the people. One such implementation may be found at http://anonetnfo.brinkster.net/ and http://anonet.org/
This is not a darknet of paedophiles, script kiddies and warez traders. It is an independent effort by those who think that the Internet can be more than a money making scheme by Big Business or tool for brainwashing the masses.
Go on, take the blue pill. Wonderland is waiting.
HonestLeader = maxHonesty( challanger, incumbent );
Many don't have the brains to perform maxHonesty() (esp. americans)
Better method:
HonestLeader = ( isCrook(incumbent) )? challanger : incumbent;
The crooks must stay in office to keep the power they are selling. So they throw you a bone or bribe you (tax credit or cut) and therefore the level of corruption is related to level of corruption in the voters. Yes, I call neglect of duty a form of corruption.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'm tired of hearing about video over the net. I'm really sick and tired of forces (corporate and governmental) trying to kill the fundamental end-to-end nature of the net, so that it can be made "safe" to send video over. I already have 2 ways to get video, over-the-air and cable, and for that matter, there are several satellite providers. Besides, so much of it isn't worth watching, anyway.
Which do you want...
1: An internet with end-to-end capability at "decent" bandwidths?
2: An internet with super-bandwidth that has become essentially client/server, where only a select few get to be servers and packet deliveries are governed by your ISPs desires.
Unfortunately, there's an elephant in the room with choice #1, which doesn't normally get mentioned. The end-to-end internet we have had so far fosters disruptive innovations. Overall that has been good for the economy, but we have to face one key fact. The Powers That Be don't like disruptive innovation, because one of those disruptions might threaten their comfort. They want nice, safe, incremental "innovation" that preserves their comfort, power, authority, and profit margin. Think for a moment, the end-to-end internet *should* be disrupting the business models for content distribution NOW, and it is. But instead of developing new business models, all efforts are focused on stopping the disruption.
It doesn't come up in public discourse, but I'm sure that stopping disruptive innovation is near the heart of the whole "net neutrality" debate.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
OMG, this is like the best remix ever...
d -stevens-remix-on-net-neutrality/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/11/te
This just proves the point made in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" that people who actually want to be in government should not be and that anybody who wants to is an idiot.
Seriously, the stupid senators, etc. are going to screw up the internet. Leave it alone! Maybe all internet traffic will be heavily encrypted or something from now on.
The problem here is in the term, "conservative government". You must realize that in the USA, that's actually an oxymoron.
What is our "conservative government" conserving?
Certainly not conserving natural resources - nothing conservationist about them.
Certainly not "sound fiscal policy" or keeping a balanced budget.
Certainly not conservative, in the sense of tried-and-true, time tested policies and practices that work.
As far as I can see, todays "conservatives" are really conserving a few key things:
Their wealth
Their power
Their authority
and not much else.
I had an epiphany the other day, courtesy of Branjolina, of all people.
They talked about famine and disease in Africa, and all the things that we could be doing with the money that we are spending on Iraq. At that point I realized... A big part of the reason we're in Iraq is to PREVENT money from being spent on those other things. The war in Iraq does many things that a myopic/incompetent policy-maker would like:
It makes the current administration a "wartime government," with its attendent ease in elections and power grabs.
It prevents government funds from being spent on "frivolous things" that a proper "conservative" government shouldn't be doing.
It funnels government funds to "the right people" through contracts, weapons replacment, etc. How much of the $4e11 is really soldiers' pay, and how much is contracts? I'll be the lion's share is in the contracts.
It helps make a boogie-man, giving authority figures someone to promote hatred toward, to help keep their power.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Politicians are for sale to the highest bidder, party affiliation doesn't matter, nationality doesn't matter. This has been the truth since the invention of politics. Politicians are just high priced protitutes. They will do whatever they are told by the person giving them the most money!
If any of them ever cared about the voters, why is the best thing to come out of Washington in the last 30 years the Do Not Call list?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
It sounds as if you're saying everybody's afraid of the telcos for fear they'll tap our phone calls and blackmail us with the contents. Are you serious????
....
The empirical fact that that NEVER seems to happen should suggest to you that nobody except the paranoid is particularly afraid of the eventuality
People call ME an alarmist about communications privacy. Sheesh.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
There isn't a whole lot of known problem, except at the local-delivery end.
Your comment is one more reason to think there won't be, but there wasn't much anyway. (Except for the snooping, of course.)
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
You think a few people have too much wealth and power? Well, in part that's been true throughout history. And to the extent it's even truer today, that's mainly because we're in an interconnected world, where talent, celebrity, and so on can be leveraged globally, for maximum benefit and creation of cash. This is true whether or not the talent, celebrity, etc. DESERVES to be paid by whatever your standard of "deserves" is. But whatever causes them to be paid has more power in a connected world than in a less-connected one, causing them to be paid yet more than they otherwise would have been.
And we all are part of the force making the world ever more connected.
As for gay marriage -- I totally agree that it should be legal, and the fact that it's a political issue is a disgraceful comment on both the politicians and and the voters.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
>The reshaping of the internet will be done SOLELY by Microsoft, AT&T/SBC, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Hollywood, and the usual suspects.
If they can persuade you not to organize and vote, yes, they'll be the only ones heard.
>If so[nationwide telco video franchises], then fiber optic cables to the home are going to happen far more quickly than anyone would have predicted five years ago -- a major upgrade to the U.S. information infrastructure.
Yes, and if Lucy holds the football I can come running up to kick it. Telcos have spent *decades* saying "give us this break and we'll lay fiber', "give us that break and we'll lay fiber", then taking the money and doing nothing.
>abolition of the USF altogether -- but that seems unlikely, as that would impose an immediate and costly burden on many rural Americans.
The USF money is not accounted for and when rural areas get service the telcos raise the rates by the amount of the subsidy.
At least this one isn't telco propaganda:
>electronic versions of anonymous cash
That was the cypherpunk dream from the previous millenium, but if you look around at all the anonymous payment systems that used to exist they've all been shut down by the requirements of USAPATRIOT.
Democracy and Capitalism in the USA died an unheralded and unceremonious death over 30 years ago. LongLiveTheRulling3|337&FUDH!
... sociopathic-personalities ... thank goodness they ain't kings and queens. However, a spin by any other name is still the SOS ... the President of North Korea/USA, Draft dodging by proxy and/or serving honorable while avoiding the Vietnam conflict. Purple-Heart Hero or chicken-heart hero is all marketed with the same spin.
Corporatism is economic communism ruled by the global plutocracy community. Politicians are either part of the ruling plutocracy community or their indentured servants. Cheap labor or economic slavery for everyone wanting to survive day to day as a citizen.
The corporatist/plutocrats can always convince and/or pay for half the slave laborers to kill the other half in times of troubles/upheavals.
Politicians and corporatist have always been scam-artist, faux-patriots, fake-prophets, vapor-heroes, pseudo-leaders, virtual-gods,
BS is BS and what the hell did anyone expect to happen after the last 30 years of political and religious lies to US.You may as well accept that you are a ruled people with approved and controlled freedoms.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I support the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. Unlike many so called "Libertarians" or "Constitutionalists" who continue to refuse to vote for the candidate of their choice instead voting the "Lessor of two evils," I voted for the candidate I like. It should NOT come down to preventing some bozo from getting elected, but rather makeing a choice of a qualified person for office. For the most part, the only differences between Republicans and Democrats is the people they choose to lie to and the lies that they tell. It is no wonder why so many people stay home on election day.
... Republicans have been supportive in voting for laws that strengthen the smut-spewing movie and music industries at the expense of customers and idependent producers. There have been more homosexuals appointed to high office in the Bush administration than in any other previous administration. They also have been responsible for passing such atrocities as the Patriot Act, and disregard to haneas corpus as well as rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Look at the lies the Republicans tell or imply:
They believe in "family values." Republicans in general claim to be against gay "marriage." They claim to be for freedom. They also claim to be for the small business. Now for the truth
Look at the lies the Democrats tell or imply:
Most claim to be for the working man, yet they continue to vote for legislation that send hardworking Americans' jobs overseas to countries that pay very little for their labor. Democrats promise privacy protections, yet they too, also allow warrantless searches as well as increase the number of rules enforced upon the citizens.
These are only a few lies that are told by the "republicrats." Rather than being a nation ruled by law, the United States has become a nation ruled by decree. Rights of the common man are only respected when it is convenient for the government or multinational corporations. Whether one approves of gay "marriage," universal health care, or many other things promised by the republicrat candidates, they will get the same thing when voting for a "republicrat." This is more taxes, more regulations, lower quality of government, more rights being converted to privileges, and less freedom.
It is probably too late to change the system by voting for Constitution Party or Libertarian Party candidates due to the fact that major corporations control the inner (and secret) workings of electronic voting machines. These machines are now used in a majority of districts. However, it does not hurt to stage a protest next election by voting for candidates of both the Libertarian or Constitution parties whenever they run for office. These candidates may not have the perfect solutions to problems, but we already know what happens when we vote for Democrats, Republicans, or the "lessor of two evils."
I believe that there will come a time when the people finally fed up with the repression of local, state, and federal governments, will rise up and claim their freedom. I believe that this will begin when people start by building their own nation or worldwide network. Then there is a free press (and armed citizens), the governments fear the people. Unfortunately there are now attacks on the free press that has sprung up via the Internet and the attack on out RIGHT to keep guns has been non-stop through recent administrations. We no longer just need a new Presidient, Congress, or Supreme Court, we need a new government (or rather an old one). No where on Earth is there a such a thing as a free nation, and this is a reason why people must fight to regain freedom.
http://www.lp.prg/ Libertarian Party website
http://www.constitutionparty.org/ Constitution Party website
http://www.fija.org/ Fully Informed Jurors Association website (Yes, we have the power to judge the law as well as the facts - judges hate this)
Where are you from? Master P was regionally popular during the middle 1990's in the southern United States. He's old and washed up now though.
This comment was randomly generated by a school of piranhas chewing on the PCB of a Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
The push in the 1990s for the balanced budget was instigated by the Republicans in 1994 as part of their platform dubbed "Contract with America". Specifically, the Fiscal Responsibility Act was one of the first attempts to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which would effectively outlaw deficit spending. The House of Representatives passed the amendment under Newt Gingrich, but Democrats in the Senate defeated the amendment by one vote (65-35).
Since Budgets are always created by the House, the new 1994 Republicans who dominated the House of Representatives throughout the latter half of the decade were instrumental in cutting spending dramatically. You can read the Brookings Institution's analysis of the 104th Congress to get an idea of what their intentions were and who they were fighting against.
Clinton refused to sign the 1996 budget over objections to spending cuts. The resulting shutdown of the federal government was somehow blamed on Republicans, despite the fact that no other President in US history had ever vetoed the budget. Regardless, it was clear at that time that Clinton was much more interested in funding social projects than balancing a budget.
The other benefit that helped balance the budget in the 1990s was the Internet Boom, which drove tax revenues through the roof. The combination of record tax revenues and House Republican spending cuts reversed the horrible deficits which occurred under the split-party system of the 1980s (Tip O'Neill vs. Ronald Reagan).
While I agree that the current administration has no idea how to balance a budget, I completely reject your claim that the Democrats are any more fiscally responsible!
Ross Perot was close. However these days the Libertarians have the best shot at truly limiting the size and power of the government. Next up is the Constitution Party. Other than that, there is no other fiscally conservative party anywhere on the political landscape.
Libertas in infinitum
You're missing the point.
The problem is that those in government are not keeping the integrity to not be influenced by powerful lobbies. The problem isn't wealth. The problems isn't corporations. The problem is the culture of unethical, and amoral politicians who lack integrity. These are people who do NOT uphold the principals of the Constitution and the founding fathers' ideals of government. These are people who are in it for themselves, to gain more power, or to gain money. Some of them have good intentions (Al Gore), but simply wish to expand government to accomplish their own 'righteous' goals.
Libertas in infinitum
I think you fail to understand that under libertarian philosophy that one's rights end where another's begin. In other words, I can do whatever I want so long as I do not infringe on anyone else's rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. In other words, I have the right to become addicted to any drug I want, but I don't have the right to steal from you in order to support that addiction.
Libertas in infinitum
I typically don't listen to rap.
The requests for phone taps were put in seven months before 9/11.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm arming for the next civil war. When America explodes, I want front row seats.
What they say about global variables: "I was 15 years old at the time"
You see, there are at least two types of conservatives. The traditional family, old fashioned type of conservatives, and the neo-conservatives. We know what the traditionalists stand for, strong family, strong community, smaller government, lower taxes, but the main goal of traditional conservatives are to strengthen the family, and this is something I agree with.
Neo-conservatives, I'm still waiting to see what the philosophy is, I understand the foreign policy is more aggressive and less isolationist, and I understand the global economic outlook, but I'm confused and or unsure about the outcome of this agenda. Sure, most of us arent going to complain if we have cheaper oil, but oil prices are going up? Most of us would not complain if policies were explained to us, and I admit that they are doing a better job than they did in the beginning.
At this point, just about all of us know why we are at war, maybe we didnt in the beginning but now we know. We also know that this war is going to be very expensive, and last for a very long time. Most conservatives arent against the war, it's the price of this war, the spending, the expenses of this war that make people question if this war is really worth it.
Does it really have to cost as much as it is costing to do this? As far as the conservatives can't govern theory, thats wrong. Mitt Romney is a good governor, Arnold is doing a decent job, these guys are conservative fiscally, I'm conservative fiscally, because it makes sense. so when you are talking about conservatives you arent talking about ordinary conservatives, you are talking about the federal government. At this stage in the war, we should support our leaders. We are going to have this leadership for another few years, and who knows how many wars we might get into between now and then. It's basically too late to cut and run, we have to at least finish what we've started in Iraq, and we might also have problems in the future with Iran and North Korea, so at this point we need someone like Bush in office.
I'm not saying that the Democrats couldnt become fiscally conservative, but I cannot imagine Hilary Clinton winning the libertarian vote. I like Hillary Clinton as a person, but at this stage in our countries history I just do not think a female president will be electable. At this point, I think it's not about Democrat or Republican anymore, it's about individuals. I think, a fiscally conservative libertarian candidate can win. I do not think a socialist or new deal Democrat can win. I do not think we will get another far right Republican, I think McCain could win, but overall I think Americans are looking for a libertarian with a conscience.
If Democrats want to have a chance, the best idea I've seen them have is when they start moving in the moral libertarian direction. That is the future of the Democratic party if there will even be a Democratic party in the future. The socially progressive fiscially conservative libertarian would be good for business, good for individual liberties and would do a lot to bring the country together. I do not advocate for socialist policies at this time, there is just too much work to do at this point, perhaps college education is good, but we are at a point now where if we do not make some basic changes, there will not be an earth in 20 years. We at Slashdot know how advanced the technology is, and we know that you cannot regulate technology to make it safe, we also know that terrorism is not something which can be stopped simply by violence. Violence + Violence = double Violence. I do think we need to focus on fighting terrorism, I think the Bush Admin picked the right topic for the nation to focus on, so the question is how do we do it?
1. We need to use our technology to have better surveillance. As much as I love privacy laws, we have to admit finally that privacy does not exist in a high tech world. Most of us here have experience as hackers and know for a fact that privacy never existed. There should be laws to protect peoples identities, and there should be laws to protect people legally and financially, but everything will be tracked, and most of us agree on this.
2. We need to have higher quality connections to each other. We need better ties, and better business and trading partners. One of the major ways which our economic system fuels terrorism is, we have countries which we refuse to trade with for no apparant reason. If we are afraid terrorists might be training in Africa, or we are afraid that there will be problems in the middle east, very similarly to what we did in India and China, we should trade with these so called terrorist states. In most cases, the majority of individuals in any state just want to survive, take care of their familys, and keep a steady job, it's the same everywhere.
3. We need to figure out what causes terrorism, what the profile of a terrorist is, and I don't mean the racial profile. Terrorism is not simply a factor of environment, terrorism is also an emotional issue. Terrorism is not rational, it's always irrational to commit terrorism, and I don't think you can simply blame religion. Religion is the excuse for terrorism just like racism is used as an excuse for certain behavior, but the focus should be on the behavior.
4. We need to remove the environmental causes of terrorism. Why do people give up on life? Because often people arent given the chance to live life in the first place. AIDs is a threat to global security, it creates living dead people, and if a person has AIDS or a disease such as this, it's the type of disease which can make a person unstable enough to commit terrorist acts. Privacy is not so important that we shouldnt have a database with everyone who has a terminal illness in it. I think if you really look at suicide rates, these rates are highest among certain groups of peope, and it has nothing to do with race, gender, country, culture, or religion.
There are perhaps thousands of ideas and things we can be doing to prevent terrorism. Terrorism is a real problem, I don't think anyon
Politics are all about blackmail and dirty tricks. Ask Karl Rove, I mean seriously. If you are this naive, I don't see how you'd ever win an election. You think people are afraid of big oil just because big oil has money? BIG OIL is powerful as hell, the most powerful group of companies in the world basically. The Telcos are right next to them in power.
Politics are about power, if you don't have any, you won't win even a local election, and you won't stand a chance in a federal election. If you think blackmail is something that only happens in the movies, I'm guessing you arent a CEO, you arent a politician, or dealing with millions of dollars. When you deal in millions or billions, and so much money is at stake, it's a completely different league and playing field. Also when you deal with people who have unlimited money, power, and influence, if you have no leverage, you'll be their bitch. It's just like on the streets, in prison, or anywhere else, the rules stay the same, when you are dealing with a lot of money and big deals, anything is possible and you'll have to be paranoid.
Seconded -- don't fuck with my Internet. Me and many other people here on Slashdot, we built the fucking Internet. We build it with our hands, sweat, and time -- and to some of us it is what we will dedicate our lives working on and building out. I'll be damned if I see my hard work go down in flames at the hands of Verizon. Call up your senator and tell them: "Don't fuck with my Internet!" Moveon.org has a list of your officials to call.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I'd like to say congratulations for starting a wiki - it really helps you do your job as a politician - listening to what *people* actually have to say about things, rather than corporations. If only every politician had one...
GWB is no conservative.
I suggest you try actually reading my post. Then, if you like, rather than guessing about my resume, you can check it out (I post under my real name).
The parts of your post that were actually connected to reality in no way contradicted what I wrote. But I did present evidential reasoning to contradict your vague theories. I suggest you either address it directly, or stay silent on the whole subject.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
I do not mean to flame you. I was simply trying to make the point, that poltiics are so serious these days that most of us could run for office if we wanted to.
There are two ways to looking at politics, maybe even two levels, the activism level, and the power level. The power level is where all the influence is and where the difficult decisions are made. The activism levels are where ordinary citizens can make their voice heard and influence who gets elected, what words are used in policy and so on and so forth. Ultimately however policy is decided by groups of powerful individual and only the words are influenced by the citizens.
So, even if 99% of citizens wanted Marijuana to be legal, if the 1% decide it should be illegal, it will be illegal, and there will be a war on drugs. I think the best thing to do now is, educate the people who want to truly be involved in politics through training, and to let the activists do charity work and community service. Most of us just arent suited or fit to get into the dirty world of politics. We have friends, family, and want to keep a clear conscience, and this might not always be optional when you take orders from powerful entities to decide policy.
New Reformed Mazdean
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
it will be shaped in the lawmakers own image: Bloated and useless.
---southpaw
It should have been 'How Washington want to shape the Internet'. Fortunately the Internet is so much more than an internal US affair - even if the US government could succeed in raising an iron curtain around all of you guys, we in the free world will still be out here. And as the goings on in China show, one can always find a way around that kind of nonsense.
Libertarianism is not an economic policy. Yes there are many libertarian economic policies, and in the main, libertarians believe that tax cuts are bad. You like taxes?
The free market is good, and it has nothing to do with copyright or monopolies, or the definition of a corporation as a person, libertarians did not create corporate government, it was the Democrats and big government conservatives who created corporate government. Basically, the corporate government is a design, and libertarians did not design it.
libertians arent FOR polution anymore than greens, libertarians believe in a clean free market, of course pollution is a problem, but you need a free market to solve that problem. freedom is a requirement for protecting the environment. i do not think you can protect the environment by creating regulations that big businesses wont follow, but by making the market more free, reducing taxes, and removing some of the restrictions, you can actually protect the environment economically, which protects the environment physically.
Pollution is a huge problem, we all breath air, we all drink water, pesticides kill all living things, and I can understand how you can think that under-regulation will allow these businesses the freedom to pollute, but these businesses already pollute with or without regulations. We have no way to track pollution accurately.
The greens are right on the pollution issue, the libertarians are right on the freedom issue. A clean environment increases freedom for everyone so any libertarian will support clean air, water, skys, solar energy or whatever simply because it's rational and makes economic sense. How many libertarians want to give up free air? It's free now but most libertarians will not want to pay for it.
Currently video franchising is done through local municipalities, except in the few states that have recently passed state-wide video franchises (Texas was the first, but there have been others). That means that in most places, a company like Verizon has to go to each county or town to get a franchise, an expensive and time-consuming process. Ultimately that means that fiber to the home is still many months (if not years) away from getting to a lot of people. And meanwhile cable companies are enjoying their nice virtual monopolies on paid TV services.
The Telcos would and do have their own monopolies, allowing them to go to the state or the feds to get approval to lay fiber everywhere would only extend their monopoly unless they were required to share it. Not just anyone can go and lay down land lines, whether it be cable, phone, or fiber. The only financially feasable ways to prevent a monopoly is to either not allow anyone to lay fiber, which isn't really financially sensible, or for the community to own the fiber which then allows others to sale services using the fiber. A good example of this is in IEEE's "Spectrum". A group of communites in Utah got together to lay the work to offer A Broadband Utopia. An association of the local governments paid for and own the lines. They then let business's and such to sale access to different services.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?
Actually you like many others have switched what liberal means. Going back to the revolutions in the USA and France to be liberal meant to be for small government and Liberty, ie "liberal". A prime example of this in the USA was Thomas Jefferson. As a Liberal TJ wanted small government. Of course today most people don't use the word to mean the same thing, instead Libertarians come the closest to what it means to be a Classical Liberal.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You may not like the idea, but you don't get to just do whatever you feel like because, believe or not, your actions do sometimes affect other people. EVEN MORE SO, if you're rich and powerful. Then we REALLY need to watch you. Because then, as a private individual, you have the ability to do a whole lot of damage to people in all kinds of ways that are not "direct victim crimes". Say, buying all the companies in an area and dropping wages. Sure, some might move. But many won't. And you win.
That is NOT libertarianism. Being libertarian means you respect the rights of others as well as your own. If you do something that harms others rights then you're not being libertarian.
FalconShould there be a Law?
in the main, libertarians believe that tax cuts are bad. You like taxes?
It's not tax cuts libertarians don't like it's big government and the "need" for taxes that that government demands they don't like. Though there might be one somewhere that likes income taxes, all the libertarians I know want income taxes abolished.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Libertarians and Greens differ only on where they draw that line. For example, for a Green polluting the commons indirectly infringes on everyone else's rights and therefore has to be prevented by law, while for a Libertarian polluting doesn't directly infringe on anyone's rights so the only incentive against it is the loss of economic goodwill (i.e. the theory that people will think long-term and buy only from responsible companies).
Ah, I've never seen someone put it that way. When I can I vote Libertarian however some of the positions the LP takes on ecology and the environment doesn't seat well for you while other do. Sometimes I want to see regulations and other tymes I'd prefer the market and courts when needed to provide a solution.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There are many more downsides to drug addiction than just the illegality of being under the influence of a drug, and you could go to any N/A meeting and hear the stories of people who not only ruined their life, but others around them.
Drug prohibition, much like alcohol prohibition did, causes more harm than it prevents. Having it illegal drives up the price for it and because of the amount of money that can be made from it, it means different gangs can and will fight each other to sale it in their neighborhoods. The only reason drugs, er more specifically hemp aka marijuana, was made illegal was because several wealthy and powerful industralists saw it as a threat to their wealth. If it was again legalized hemp could provide food, fuel, and shelter. Hemp seeds are one of the most nutritious foods there is, cloth made from hemp is strong as durable, and both alcohol and oil can be made to be used for fuel.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Reading the posts between the two of you I agree with some of what you say, however this one is false. Better technology doesn't always win. Look at Sony's Betamax. Technologically the Betamax was better than the VHS but the VHS won.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually different states have different laws regarding LLCs. Several years ago I did some research on setting up an LLC for a business I wanted start and found out that this was true. For instance in some states a single person can start an LLC on their own but in other states an LLC requires three members/owners and they all have to be residents of the state.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Have you been reading much of what I'm saying? I do not think Libertarian philosophy will benefit the common man in the real world. I think in the real world, it just allows the strong to do what they want at the expense of the weak.
Throughout this string I'm seen how you say libertarianism is nothing more than a eutopia or a dead-end philosophy and talk about all the problems it would bring but you neither say all other systems have the same problem nor do you offer a viable alternative. Fact is is that there isn't any system that will do more for the common person than liberty and what libertarians ask for, at least it will give them the freedom to try to improve themself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And did you vote for Michael Badnarik in 2004? Unfortunately I threw away my vote in 2000 by voting specifically against Bush instead of for whom I wanted. Last year my vote was for Badnarik.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you want smaller government there's a third choice, join the Free State Project.
falconShould there be a Law?
we should support our leaders.
Why support someone who has lied about many things, and did so to start a war? In 2000 instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush. For a short tyme, after 911 I did support Bush, but that ended quickly when he started banging the war drums. I'm still waiting to see all those stockpiles of WMDs. And why if it was so important to get rid of the Taliban did Bush give them tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to begin with?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I voted for the candidate I like. It should NOT come down to preventing some bozo from getting elected, but rather makeing a choice of a qualified person for office.
Unfortunately I was one of those who voted that way in 2000, instead of voting for who I wanted I specifically voted against Bush. Gore wasn't good but he was less bad than Bush to me. In 2004 I voted for Michael Badnarik, and if I lived in the district he's running for in Texas I'd vote for him again. In a way I think that brings up one of the problems Libertarians have, they should run for more local and state offices to get more visibility.
I believe that there will come a time when the people finally fed up with the repression of local, state, and federal governments, will rise up and claim their freedom.
Some are working on just this, the Free State Project is trying to get enough people to move to New Hampshire to regain freedom and liberty and reduce the size of government.
Fully Informed Jurors Association
Ah, only if more people knew about jury nullification. Unfortunately I've heard of cases where people were kicked off juries because they knew about it, that prosecuters and some judges are disqualifying people if they know about it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Government is a non physical entity. Government is not physical. Libertarians know that government exists only in the minds of individuals. The Greens on the other hand, seem to believe that government only exists on pieces of paper called laws, or through lawyers.
The Libertarian perception of government takes into account that ultimately, we are the governor of ourselves through corporations and through interaction. Regulation reduces the ability you have to govern yourself and gives this ability to guys in suits who will decide for you what you can and cannot consume, wear, how many hours you work, how much money you make and all these other things. Regulation in the end means reduced freedom which means reduced ability to self govern.
The concerns I have with the Greens is that there is a chance they might be against civil liberties, and I don't mean the constitution, I mean an actual reduce of freedom. I agree that the environment needs to be protected, it's a matter of which methods are the way to protect it. I think first of all, it must be profitable. No one is going to protect something unless it's out of greed. The key to making anything work is understanding psychology, and the science behind it. The Green party wants to alter behavior to protect the environment, but people in general do not take orders from nameless faceless words written on pieces of paper, at least thats not how most people respond. It's carrot and stick, you offer incentives, like increased freedom, the ability to profit, and other incentives, and reducded freedom and ability to profit as the downside. This is proven to work. In general, theres different ways of thinking, and feeling among humans, but you can do a statistical check and see that the people who you want to communicate with, are not going to want to accept regulations. If you are a CEO, you run a big business and are powerful, used to getting what you want, why exactly would you accept regulations from a bunch of lawyers? Regulation is the reason why the Green party is having so much problems. The Green party takes the gamble that people universally care about the environment, or that people care in general. Some people only care about winning, and winning in the moment. The people who care about the future, these people already know what the Green party wants to do and don't need the regulation to begin with. The people who don't care, arent going to respond to the regulation in the way the Green party expects.
This is a difference of psychology, of neuro-economics, and the solution will be a neuro-economic solution. I do not think regulations will solve anything, it's like adding new taxes, it will piss off the people who's behavior you want to change and perhaps cause even more pollution. It's the big daddy government telling it's citizens what they can and cannot do again. If you can find a solution to this problem which does not involve more taxes, more regulations, bigger government, and less rights and freedom, then you'll start to win support among libertarians.
Lower taxes, increase individual freedom, increase economic freedom, but if you actually reduce the ability to profit and trade, or if you try regulations, this is just going to make libertarians respond by asking for tax cuts. No libertarian wants to pay your government to remove their freedom, but they would love to improve the environment in exchange for an increase in freedom and a decrease in regulation. This means, if a corporation or individual can recieve government credits, and recieve a huge reduction in taxes in exchange for protecting the environment, then you'll be on to something. How about a tax reduction? How about a decrease in regulation for the people who protect the environment? I mean give people some privileges. How else do you get selfish people to protect the environment? People want something in return for that. So think up some ways you can buy the support of the selfish man, without money, and that will bring you close to the solution.
I see no benefit to an income tax. A sales tax, okay maybe. A negative income tax, okay perhaps. But the current income tax? No.
Taxes arent always bad, the problem with taxes is we arent taxing people based on what they use, we are taxing people in unfair ways. We arent taxing people way too much and then we act surprised when the government is way big and intrusive.