What the government should be doing is providing the infrastructure that enables competition. Ensuring fair and equal access to the commons is what governments are for. What we get here in the US monopoly enforcement.
Saddleing people with a lifetime of debt is not the answer. A governments duty to its constituents is to provide them with the tools to thrive in the environments that they find themsleves. This is why primary and eventually high school educations became eventually mandated as free and eventually required of all citizens under their jurisdiction. There is no way that something that can only be obtained by money can be considered equalizing in any democracy.
So what problem do you have with this? Democracy is about everyone having equal opportunities. It sounds to me that you want to keep something to yourself and not allow everyone else to share in your wealth.
There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered?
The only reasonable outcome is for government to take control of the infrastructure that is the backbone of the internet and build it out as they did with roads. This is not a communistic viewpoint as free travel spurs commerce while tolls inhibit it.
Think of it as an adult child who has left the protection of his parents. They have every right to be screen their child to be sure he didn't become a drug addict, rapist, or mass murderer before allowing them back in their home. Don't take this wrong because I sincerely beleive their should be universally assured human rights. But the way things stand some people think the US is too strict and others believe Saudi is too lenient so, until their is global consensus on these things, it is up to each state to enforce their own laws.
When in a foreign land, you follow the rules of that land. Intrinsic rights are and only can be given to those who fall under that state's jurisdiction. Until there are universally accepted and guaranteed by some global dominion people can not and should not expect the laws that they were raised under to respected in other jurisdictions.
I believe a 1000 foot rule is in effect for other aircraft, and the same needs to be enforced for drones once they become allowed for general commercial use. For those of you who think such a regulation is ridiculous try living in an airport's flight path for a while. Do you really want these things buzzing over your head at all hours interupting your peace and quiet?
Until self driving cars can be held individually responbile for mishaps humans must be ultimately responsible for whatever damage they cause. I can forsee a future where self driving cars don't yield to pedestriasns walking againjst a lightl. A human would respect life and stop simply because a life is a life and humas respect life above all else., a self driving car would insist it was their right to run the pedastrian down simply because that was the rules of the road.
Slashdot Mirror
What the government should be doing is providing the infrastructure that enables competition. Ensuring fair and equal access to the commons is what governments are for. What we get here in the US monopoly enforcement.
Saddleing people with a lifetime of debt is not the answer. A governments duty to its constituents is to provide them with the tools to thrive in the environments that they find themsleves. This is why primary and eventually high school educations became eventually mandated as free and eventually required of all citizens under their jurisdiction. There is no way that something that can only be obtained by money can be considered equalizing in any democracy.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Right or wrong, LGTB is not in there.
If sex isn't the issue, then what is?
All that is needed is a rule that all the code that is required to fulfill a government requirement is open to inspection.
The fix is already there, no less than 1000 feet.
....from flying over my house, that is all I want.
...insecure as to back an unproven currency! OP most be a just another cad trying to suck real value into something of no value.
Seems I recall Indiana being famous for legislating science.
No, it is not free enough to be useful.
Knowing this, Pixar should have released it free as in free, not free as a slave to Pixar.
Non-commercial use? How the fuck is that "free"?
So what problem do you have with this? Democracy is about everyone having equal opportunities. It sounds to me that you want to keep something to yourself and not allow everyone else to share in your wealth.
Democratic governments represent the will of the people so, if the people are greedy, their governments will be greedy.
He believed a revolution was coming.
There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered?
The only reasonable outcome is for government to take control of the infrastructure that is the backbone of the internet and build it out as they did with roads. This is not a communistic viewpoint as free travel spurs commerce while tolls inhibit it.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought this rule was for those who travelled abroad and thus left the protection of New Zealand law.
Think of it as an adult child who has left the protection of his parents. They have every right to be screen their child to be sure he didn't become a drug addict, rapist, or mass murderer before allowing them back in their home. Don't take this wrong because I sincerely beleive their should be universally assured human rights. But the way things stand some people think the US is too strict and others believe Saudi is too lenient so, until their is global consensus on these things, it is up to each state to enforce their own laws.
Well of course it does. They voluntarily left New Zealand's jurisdiction and protection did they not?
When in a foreign land, you follow the rules of that land. Intrinsic rights are and only can be given to those who fall under that state's jurisdiction. Until there are universally accepted and guaranteed by some global dominion people can not and should not expect the laws that they were raised under to respected in other jurisdictions.
I believe a 1000 foot rule is in effect for other aircraft, and the same needs to be enforced for drones once they become allowed for general commercial use. For those of you who think such a regulation is ridiculous try living in an airport's flight path for a while. Do you really want these things buzzing over your head at all hours interupting your peace and quiet?
Maybe, but I need the state to protect my personal property. Think of how a the world would be if only the strongest could protect what is theirs?
The privacy of the police is equally protected as the privacy of the individual.
I don't want to have to cancel my planetarium membership.
Could you please name such a nation? I live in the USA where the government exists to protect the rights of corporations.
Until self driving cars can be held individually responbile for mishaps humans must be ultimately responsible for whatever damage they cause. I can forsee a future where self driving cars don't yield to pedestriasns walking againjst a lightl. A human would respect life and stop simply because a life is a life and humas respect life above all else., a self driving car would insist it was their right to run the pedastrian down simply because that was the rules of the road.
Republicans are weird, their being all up into this personal responsibility but follow their rules shit, so what did you expect?