The rust is annoying though... Because they're compressing 4 wavelengths into 3 wavelengths. An image with only the RGB would look nicer. They could store the 4th IR channel as alpha channel...
No matter which way you "look" at something you are either compressing or ignoring some quality of light. The "art" of astrophotography is therefore about how much information you intend to leave out and how much you squeeze into the narrow bands of light we humans can perceive. If you are not happy with the rendering, you might be able to source the uncompressed scientific data -- which will still only ever contain partial-information due to optical, CCD and other limitations -- and render it yourself... Assuming Roskosmos make their equivalent of FITS data available to the public like NASA does.
No. He was planning on developing a process whereby 100% of the mass in a 3oz. bottle of distilled water could be converted to energy. Should be roughly enough to blow up a plane, all the surrounding planes, the airport and a good size chunk of surrounding city.
Indeed. About 1.8 megatons of TNT according to e=mc^2... I never get tired of doing that calculation.
The activating mechanism, of course, fits in his underwear.
If by his underwear you mean a colossal Penning trap capable of storing 3oz of antimatter, yes indeed! The brilliance of this evil scientist plot is it will only cost trillions of dollars and take at the very least several decades to fulfill -- so it will easily slip right under the radar.
Not true in general. For example, a system that yields 1% false negatives and 1% false positives is still 98% reliable, and much better than random guessing.
Granted, but we are talking about this specific article and not "in general". Since mouse movements are sometimes used as an entropy source for RNG seed material (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5799088.html, for example) indicates that the uncertainty could be closer to random chance. Ie <<2-sigma
Translation: you're not getting the point.
Lots of false negatives and false positives is still a lot better than random guessing. Also, this is just the beginning.
On the contrary: Equally large amounts of false negatives and false positives is exactly the same as random guessing. [Shannon, 1948]
People are used to high frame rates. Its not like 3D where it actually makes some people feel sick.
As for the GP stating "Every time I see a high fps recording of something the motion looks like it's going to fast.", I don't see that at all. It just looks normal, it doesn't look faster at all. Its just smooth and realistic.
The physical universe has a pretty good framerate -- about 8.3*10^16fps, according to Planck -- and it's in 3D too! I've never heard a sober person complain about either of these two things.
Google makes money by selling your eyes (via advertising) to corporations. Apple makes money by selling things that people want.
Did you even bother to read the summary or even the title of this thread, or do you just come here for the specific purpose of trolling?
In-case you missed it...
by the standard which is routinely applied to Apple on slashdot. All anyone has ever done is combine concepts that already existed.
Google? OMG no, they just made a more polished Alta-Vista, which itself was based on turbogopher, which was based on the index in the back of most books, which were based on cave drawings, blah blah blah.
The difference is fairly obvious: Unlike Apple, Google did not use their search engine patents as competitive weapons. Instead, they chose to make their money the old-fashioned way: By selling things that their customers find useful. Alta-Vista, Excite, Lycos et al. didn't lose because they were sued into oblivion, they lost the old-fashioned way, because their customers chose a better service.
slashdot is so predictably delusional it's really starting to get boring.
I can't make up my mind if this remark is a rather dull attempt at trolling or brilliantly self-satirical.
1. Put adverts in OS
2. Call it an "upgrade", not adware
3. Patent it . .
4. Threaten all add supported software makers with lawsuits (planned) . .
5. Make unfathomable wealth by not actually inventing or even implementing anything (goal)
There. Fixed that for you. In the name of humanity, please refrain from writing science-fiction. Otherwise, you'll get hired by Hollywood, bestowing upon us horrors like "A Sound of Thunder" or "2012".
The top my all time stupidest sci-fi movie has to be Earth's Final Hours (2011), where the Earth's rotation is stopped by a few dozen golf-ball sized meteorites hitting the planet in a mid-western farm field. Luckily for us, there was an abandoned cold-war satellite with a laser beam thingy that was activated at the last minute to restart the Earth's rotation. Phew!
I think you expressed exactly the kind of frustration felt by many of us. The number of people who buy into the stupidity that Hollywood feeds them is what's really scary.
This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!
What we need is to extend copyright, broader and stronger patents and generaly to beef up all IP laws. How about automatic injunctions for all accusations of patent infringement, like SOPA and PIPA gives copyright holders? That should spur on innovation!
Oh, and cut taxes and gov't spending!
The only unfortunate thing about your statement is that its brilliant irony will be lost on the masses. So I will frame it in a way even the politicians can understand... Once upon a time there was a boy who cried wolf. One evening the villagers heard a commotion over the Internet. They assembled in the town square around the body of a slain child. It was only then they realized there was no boy, it was the wolf all along.
The founders' opinions are important because they inform us as to the meaning of the Constitution. And the Constitution is important because it defines the federal government. It has an amendment process that has been used 27 times, so it has been re-written to some degree.
For the most part, the Constitution is not ambiguous. For example, the famous controversies in interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment arose because certain people did not like the plain meaning of the text. The meanings were clear to the people who wrote and passed those sections. The intent can be unambiguously determined by examining the debates surrounding their passage. The 2nd amendment was intended to protect an individual right to own and carry military-grade weapons in public. The privileges or immunities clause was supposed to prevent states from violating rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both clauses have been twisted to entirely different and illogical meanings by judges who didn't like the original intent.
That is why the original meaning is important. The purpose of the document lies in semantics. If you don't respect the original intent, then you're changing the semantics and you might as well re-write the document. That's why there is an amendment process.
The Constitution is not perfect, but it is a very well thought-out document. There were several novel and ingenious aspects to the government it created. One particularly good idea was to enumerate all activities permitted to the government, rather than attempt to enumerate prohibitions. This was intended to preserve liberty by limiting the role of government. Unfortunately the narrow scope of enumerated powers has failed to limit the role of the federal government, but the failure was not necessarily in the Constitution itself; the boundaries have simply been ignored.
That is why some Americans seem to worship the Constitution. The government has steadily usurped powers that it was not supposed to have, and whittled away at all manner of guaranteed individual rights. If we did things the "right" way by strictly following the Constitution, American society would be very different and some people might prefer that. (There would also be drawbacks. I tend to like this idea, but some amendments would be necessary.)
Consider this: in the founders' time, there were no income taxes or professional police departments. The federal government was originally oriented toward matters of foreign policy, and revenue was provided by tariffs. The founders probably would have considered modern policing to be similar to the standing armies that they feared as instruments of oppression. And nobody would have thought the federal government could restrict the plants that people grow on their own land, the food they eat or sell locally, or the weapons they carry when traveling.
George Washington's cabinet had what, 4 members? Contrast that with modern times.
The sticking part of the Sedition Act is this: "shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal [...] language about the form of government of the United States". This is where it essentially makes any opinion against the government criminal, and that is unconstitutional. Where this was moderated in modern American law is that it was narrowed down to 'overthrowing'. It is quite a different and more specific matter than the broad word 'disloyal' which was used in that period to charge and imprison many persons who did not advocate anything more than "radical" (relative to the American mainstream) ideologies or systems of government. The legal prohibition of advocating the overthrow of the government is constitutional because such an overthrow would necessitate illegal means (violence, coercion), whereas the earlier prohibition of 'disloyal language' effectively bars otherwise constitutionally protected activities of organizing political movements and voting for change within the existing political framework.
How's that for indefensible, condescending AC shitbag?
Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
"You have the right to speak regardless of which medium you choose to exercise this right."
But their is no write to the access to that medium.
You can not just walk into a TV station and demand a half hour of time, you can not walk into a print shop and demand they print your document. You can not demand access to the internet.
The internet like tv, radio, paper, and ink are resources not rights.
What do you not understand about the statement? The right to speak is independent of how it is exercised.
Of course they can deny your access. If you do not own a printing press you can be denied access to one. For radio and TV not only must you have the money to own, rent, or the permission of the owner you must also follow the FCC rules on profanity transmitting power and so on. For the Internet you must have the money to pay for access to it. That is where it is not a right. Freedom of speech means that you can say what ever you want but the available means of communication are not rights outside of using your own mouth and or writing with your own hand and resources.
You have the right to speak regardless of which medium you choose to exercise this right.
So internet access is not a right as covered under the 1st amendment of the constitution. It is just another tool of communication no different than a printing press. A tool that is used by both individuals and the press.
Now what they can not do is remove your access to prevent of your exercise of free speech just as they can not take away a printing press that you own.
The common misconception is that the constitution grants rights to the people. The notion of liberty is that rights are innate.
Providing access does not equal preventing the denial of access. You're disagreeing with something the poster did not actually say, and in actuality are agreeing with them.
The previous poster was saying nobody can be forced to give you access to their printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter, not that you cannot access them if you come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the owner of one or if you own one such device yourself.
Unless you are trolling, I think you have misread both posts.
Interesting should then the government give it to you?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your are provided access to a printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter.
Correct, it means you cannot be denied access to a printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter should you wish to exercise your right to free speech. Only when your speech is determined by a court under due process of law to harm the rights of others can that speech be eliminated.
Liberty is the result of this process in terms of any action. For example, you have the right to kill. The result of you exercising this right may result in a charge of murder or manslaughter. Because you have a right to due process, it may be found in court that you acted in defense of yourself, your family or your community and that you are not guilty (or never were guilty) of any crime. That is liberty.
You have the right to copy other people's work. The result of you exercising this right may result in a charge of copyright infringement. Because you have a right to due process, a court may find that your use of the work was in the greater interests of the community (fair use) and as such you are not guilty (or never were guilty) of a crime. That is liberty.
Politicians and extermists will try and pervert the meaning of the word liberty, but in a nutshell it is the freedom to act under the rule of law; and is something precious few populations have. Being restrained from any act -- be it speech, homicide or copying a piece of art -- without due process or with the presumption of guilt is not liberty. If you have it, you need to fight for it.
"Actually, randomly selecting people from a state or province, similar to a lottery draw, may be a better idea. The key is to make sure it is a large variety of people."
An idea even more radical is to place term limits on the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. It will require a change to the Constitution, but the mood for such a change is reflected in the dismal 11% approval rating of Congress. Use your vote to favor a government that does not have at is heart a stagnating core of dinosaurs who every year fall increasingly out of touch with "the people" and further into lock step with the status quo.
Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.
Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.
I think you have struck on key issue... Politicians don't like the idea of a free Internet, they just don't fully understand why right now. The answer is pretty simple, people engaging with each other via social media leads to a population less tolerant of soundbytes and rhetoric. As society becomes more involved in the issues, it demands greater accountability. An activist is born when a personal connection is made to an issue. I for one view SOPA and PIPA as a personal affront to my liberty and will not be satisfied by a hearty speech or weasel words of justification or apology. I want Congress to reject the notion that the US Government has the authority to eliminate free speech anywhere in the world without due process. Especially given that the approval rating for Congress is hovering around 11%, meaning they do not have a mandate to act "for the people" in any case. It remains to be seen if the President is going to act responsibly and veto these bills or kowtow to Congress like he did with by signing in the NDAA -- another liberty smasher that he passed into law while the world was celebrating New Year's eve. The TV channels may not be interested, but politicians can't escape the scrutiny of an entire population via the Internet... at least until they make social media nonviable by enacting something like SOPA, of course.
So therefore any and all attempts at increasing government spending represent greedy politicians squeezing more cash out of the populace?
Even the most hardcore libertarians I know believe the government has taxation authority for transportation infrastructure, weights & measures enforcement, and a military - including growing those things when needed. But not you, you saw through even those bullshit arguments! Guess the next time I-90 buckles or a new town with 2 million people thinks that *maybe* it's time they got a freeway we'll have to point out that: "No! Lee Greatrex opened our eyes and we know that government spending shalt never grow!".
FDA seeks to invest in foodborne illness prevention, medical product safety and countermeasures $4.3 billion request reflects a 33 percent increase from FY 2010 enacted budget
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is requesting a budget of $4.3 billion to protect and promote the public health as part of the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget — a 33 percent increase over the FDA enacted budget for FY 2010. The FY 2012 request covers the period of Oct. 1, 2011, through Sept. 30, 2012.
“FDA protects and promotes the health of all Americans through every stage of life,” said Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., commissioner of food and drugs. “The breadth of this mandate means that FDA responsibilities continue to grow. The new budget contains new resources so that FDA can fulfill its growing responsibilities to the American public.” http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm243354.htm
It is a supreme falsehood that a government's responsibilities and resources must grow. Bureaucracies like the FDA may be immune to democracy, but the politicians who seek to grow them are not.
Slashdot Mirror
The rust is annoying though... Because they're compressing 4 wavelengths into 3 wavelengths. An image with only the RGB would look nicer. They could store the 4th IR channel as alpha channel...
No matter which way you "look" at something you are either compressing or ignoring some quality of light. The "art" of astrophotography is therefore about how much information you intend to leave out and how much you squeeze into the narrow bands of light we humans can perceive. If you are not happy with the rendering, you might be able to source the uncompressed scientific data -- which will still only ever contain partial-information due to optical, CCD and other limitations -- and render it yourself... Assuming Roskosmos make their equivalent of FITS data available to the public like NASA does.
No. He was planning on developing a process whereby 100% of the mass in a 3oz. bottle of distilled water could be converted to energy. Should be roughly enough to blow up a plane, all the surrounding planes, the airport and a good size chunk of surrounding city.
Indeed. About 1.8 megatons of TNT according to e=mc^2... I never get tired of doing that calculation.
The activating mechanism, of course, fits in his underwear.
If by his underwear you mean a colossal Penning trap capable of storing 3oz of antimatter, yes indeed! The brilliance of this evil scientist plot is it will only cost trillions of dollars and take at the very least several decades to fulfill -- so it will easily slip right under the radar.
Not true in general. For example, a system that yields 1% false negatives and 1% false positives is still 98% reliable, and much better than random guessing.
Granted, but we are talking about this specific article and not "in general". Since mouse movements are sometimes used as an entropy source for RNG seed material (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5799088.html, for example) indicates that the uncertainty could be closer to random chance. Ie <<2-sigma
Translation: you're not getting the point. Lots of false negatives and false positives is still a lot better than random guessing. Also, this is just the beginning.
On the contrary: Equally large amounts of false negatives and false positives is exactly the same as random guessing. [Shannon, 1948]
People are used to high frame rates. Its not like 3D where it actually makes some people feel sick.
As for the GP stating "Every time I see a high fps recording of something the motion looks like it's going to fast.", I don't see that at all. It just looks normal, it doesn't look faster at all. Its just smooth and realistic.
The physical universe has a pretty good framerate -- about 8.3*10^16fps, according to Planck -- and it's in 3D too! I've never heard a sober person complain about either of these two things.
Google makes money by selling your eyes (via advertising) to corporations. Apple makes money by selling things that people want.
Did you even bother to read the summary or even the title of this thread, or do you just come here for the specific purpose of trolling? In-case you missed it...
Steve Jobs' Idea For an Ad-Supported OS
by the standard which is routinely applied to Apple on slashdot. All anyone has ever done is combine concepts that already existed.
Google? OMG no, they just made a more polished Alta-Vista, which itself was based on turbogopher, which was based on the index in the back of most books, which were based on cave drawings, blah blah blah.
The difference is fairly obvious: Unlike Apple, Google did not use their search engine patents as competitive weapons. Instead, they chose to make their money the old-fashioned way: By selling things that their customers find useful. Alta-Vista, Excite, Lycos et al. didn't lose because they were sued into oblivion, they lost the old-fashioned way, because their customers chose a better service.
slashdot is so predictably delusional it's really starting to get boring.
I can't make up my mind if this remark is a rather dull attempt at trolling or brilliantly self-satirical.
1. Put adverts in OS
.
.
.
.
2. Call it an "upgrade", not adware
3. Patent it
4. Threaten all add supported software makers with lawsuits (planned)
5. Make unfathomable wealth by not actually inventing or even implementing anything (goal)
There. Fixed that for you. In the name of humanity, please refrain from writing science-fiction. Otherwise, you'll get hired by Hollywood, bestowing upon us horrors like "A Sound of Thunder" or "2012".
The top my all time stupidest sci-fi movie has to be Earth's Final Hours (2011), where the Earth's rotation is stopped by a few dozen golf-ball sized meteorites hitting the planet in a mid-western farm field. Luckily for us, there was an abandoned cold-war satellite with a laser beam thingy that was activated at the last minute to restart the Earth's rotation. Phew!
Fuck off and die -- it's not scary
I think you expressed exactly the kind of frustration felt by many of us. The number of people who buy into the stupidity that Hollywood feeds them is what's really scary.
Please don't confuse the World Wide Web Consortium with the shitty spam farm known as W3Schools.
There is no confusion. The satire benefits from the brevity of the w3schools and jquery links rather than the firehose of information at http://www.w3.org/Submission/web-forms2/#for-javascript, for example.
I visited this rogue site that posts hostile code exploits and learned how to circumvent user privacy....
http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_form_submit.asp
Even worse, this malware generating site makes exploit code even easier...
http://api.jquery.com/submit/
And yes, I used the most evil and corrupt search engine ever invented (past and future) to locate these hacker havens
This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!
That is a perfectly cromulent phrase.
What we need is to extend copyright, broader and stronger patents and generaly to beef up all IP laws. How about automatic injunctions for all accusations of patent infringement, like SOPA and PIPA gives copyright holders? That should spur on innovation!
Oh, and cut taxes and gov't spending!
The only unfortunate thing about your statement is that its brilliant irony will be lost on the masses. So I will frame it in a way even the politicians can understand... Once upon a time there was a boy who cried wolf. One evening the villagers heard a commotion over the Internet. They assembled in the town square around the body of a slain child. It was only then they realized there was no boy, it was the wolf all along.
The founders' opinions are important because they inform us as to the meaning of the Constitution. And the Constitution is important because it defines the federal government. It has an amendment process that has been used 27 times, so it has been re-written to some degree. For the most part, the Constitution is not ambiguous. For example, the famous controversies in interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment arose because certain people did not like the plain meaning of the text. The meanings were clear to the people who wrote and passed those sections. The intent can be unambiguously determined by examining the debates surrounding their passage. The 2nd amendment was intended to protect an individual right to own and carry military-grade weapons in public. The privileges or immunities clause was supposed to prevent states from violating rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both clauses have been twisted to entirely different and illogical meanings by judges who didn't like the original intent. That is why the original meaning is important. The purpose of the document lies in semantics. If you don't respect the original intent, then you're changing the semantics and you might as well re-write the document. That's why there is an amendment process. The Constitution is not perfect, but it is a very well thought-out document. There were several novel and ingenious aspects to the government it created. One particularly good idea was to enumerate all activities permitted to the government, rather than attempt to enumerate prohibitions. This was intended to preserve liberty by limiting the role of government. Unfortunately the narrow scope of enumerated powers has failed to limit the role of the federal government, but the failure was not necessarily in the Constitution itself; the boundaries have simply been ignored. That is why some Americans seem to worship the Constitution. The government has steadily usurped powers that it was not supposed to have, and whittled away at all manner of guaranteed individual rights. If we did things the "right" way by strictly following the Constitution, American society would be very different and some people might prefer that. (There would also be drawbacks. I tend to like this idea, but some amendments would be necessary.) Consider this: in the founders' time, there were no income taxes or professional police departments. The federal government was originally oriented toward matters of foreign policy, and revenue was provided by tariffs. The founders probably would have considered modern policing to be similar to the standing armies that they feared as instruments of oppression. And nobody would have thought the federal government could restrict the plants that people grow on their own land, the food they eat or sell locally, or the weapons they carry when traveling. George Washington's cabinet had what, 4 members? Contrast that with modern times.
Well spoken indeed.
The sticking part of the Sedition Act is this: "shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal [...] language about the form of government of the United States". This is where it essentially makes any opinion against the government criminal, and that is unconstitutional. Where this was moderated in modern American law is that it was narrowed down to 'overthrowing'. It is quite a different and more specific matter than the broad word 'disloyal' which was used in that period to charge and imprison many persons who did not advocate anything more than "radical" (relative to the American mainstream) ideologies or systems of government. The legal prohibition of advocating the overthrow of the government is constitutional because such an overthrow would necessitate illegal means (violence, coercion), whereas the earlier prohibition of 'disloyal language' effectively bars otherwise constitutionally protected activities of organizing political movements and voting for change within the existing political framework. How's that for indefensible, condescending AC shitbag?
Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. — Abraham Lincoln
"You have the right to speak regardless of which medium you choose to exercise this right." But their is no write to the access to that medium.
You can not just walk into a TV station and demand a half hour of time, you can not walk into a print shop and demand they print your document. You can not demand access to the internet.
The internet like tv, radio, paper, and ink are resources not rights.
What do you not understand about the statement? The right to speak is independent of how it is exercised.
Of course they can deny your access. If you do not own a printing press you can be denied access to one. For radio and TV not only must you have the money to own, rent, or the permission of the owner you must also follow the FCC rules on profanity transmitting power and so on. For the Internet you must have the money to pay for access to it. That is where it is not a right. Freedom of speech means that you can say what ever you want but the available means of communication are not rights outside of using your own mouth and or writing with your own hand and resources.
You have the right to speak regardless of which medium you choose to exercise this right.
So internet access is not a right as covered under the 1st amendment of the constitution. It is just another tool of communication no different than a printing press. A tool that is used by both individuals and the press. Now what they can not do is remove your access to prevent of your exercise of free speech just as they can not take away a printing press that you own.
The common misconception is that the constitution grants rights to the people. The notion of liberty is that rights are innate.
Personally I think it will make a good addition to the sequel to Team America World Police.
Providing access does not equal preventing the denial of access. You're disagreeing with something the poster did not actually say, and in actuality are agreeing with them.
The previous poster was saying nobody can be forced to give you access to their printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter, not that you cannot access them if you come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the owner of one or if you own one such device yourself.
Unless you are trolling, I think you have misread both posts.
Interesting should then the government give it to you? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your are provided access to a printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter.
Correct, it means you cannot be denied access to a printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter should you wish to exercise your right to free speech. Only when your speech is determined by a court under due process of law to harm the rights of others can that speech be eliminated.
Liberty is the result of this process in terms of any action. For example, you have the right to kill. The result of you exercising this right may result in a charge of murder or manslaughter. Because you have a right to due process, it may be found in court that you acted in defense of yourself, your family or your community and that you are not guilty (or never were guilty) of any crime. That is liberty.
You have the right to copy other people's work. The result of you exercising this right may result in a charge of copyright infringement. Because you have a right to due process, a court may find that your use of the work was in the greater interests of the community (fair use) and as such you are not guilty (or never were guilty) of a crime. That is liberty.
Politicians and extermists will try and pervert the meaning of the word liberty, but in a nutshell it is the freedom to act under the rule of law; and is something precious few populations have. Being restrained from any act -- be it speech, homicide or copying a piece of art -- without due process or with the presumption of guilt is not liberty. If you have it, you need to fight for it.
"Actually, randomly selecting people from a state or province, similar to a lottery draw, may be a better idea. The key is to make sure it is a large variety of people."
An idea even more radical is to place term limits on the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. It will require a change to the Constitution, but the mood for such a change is reflected in the dismal 11% approval rating of Congress. Use your vote to favor a government that does not have at is heart a stagnating core of dinosaurs who every year fall increasingly out of touch with "the people" and further into lock step with the status quo.
Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.
Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.
I think you have struck on key issue... Politicians don't like the idea of a free Internet, they just don't fully understand why right now. The answer is pretty simple, people engaging with each other via social media leads to a population less tolerant of soundbytes and rhetoric. As society becomes more involved in the issues, it demands greater accountability. An activist is born when a personal connection is made to an issue. I for one view SOPA and PIPA as a personal affront to my liberty and will not be satisfied by a hearty speech or weasel words of justification or apology. I want Congress to reject the notion that the US Government has the authority to eliminate free speech anywhere in the world without due process. Especially given that the approval rating for Congress is hovering around 11%, meaning they do not have a mandate to act "for the people" in any case. It remains to be seen if the President is going to act responsibly and veto these bills or kowtow to Congress like he did with by signing in the NDAA -- another liberty smasher that he passed into law while the world was celebrating New Year's eve. The TV channels may not be interested, but politicians can't escape the scrutiny of an entire population via the Internet... at least until they make social media nonviable by enacting something like SOPA, of course.
So therefore any and all attempts at increasing government spending represent greedy politicians squeezing more cash out of the populace? Even the most hardcore libertarians I know believe the government has taxation authority for transportation infrastructure, weights & measures enforcement, and a military - including growing those things when needed. But not you, you saw through even those bullshit arguments! Guess the next time I-90 buckles or a new town with 2 million people thinks that *maybe* it's time they got a freeway we'll have to point out that: "No! Lee Greatrex opened our eyes and we know that government spending shalt never grow!".
Spoken like a true politician.
FDA seeks to invest in foodborne illness prevention, medical product safety and countermeasures $4.3 billion request reflects a 33 percent increase from FY 2010 enacted budget
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is requesting a budget of $4.3 billion to protect and promote the public health as part of the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget — a 33 percent increase over the FDA enacted budget for FY 2010. The FY 2012 request covers the period of Oct. 1, 2011, through Sept. 30, 2012.
“FDA protects and promotes the health of all Americans through every stage of life,” said Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., commissioner of food and drugs. “The breadth of this mandate means that FDA responsibilities continue to grow. The new budget contains new resources so that FDA can fulfill its growing responsibilities to the American public.” http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm243354.htm
It is a supreme falsehood that a government's responsibilities and resources must grow. Bureaucracies like the FDA may be immune to democracy, but the politicians who seek to grow them are not.