Standards and regulations are updated on a regular basis by their issuing authorities. If Public.Resource.Org releases these into the wild, then they will be updated, by inserting a single comma, and reissued. This will invalidate the previous versions and force the purchase of a new set.
The manufacturing sector has been hounded out of the US and now it is the turn of the most vigorous replacement industries (those based on the internet).
The reason the internet has been such a phenomenal success, with the most amazing record of growth ever, is that up to now the government has, perhaps unwittingly, kept its hands off. But there is nothing that the government can't improve, and they are going to improve the hell out of the internet.
I know I am picking on the USA. Up to now freedom has been greatest there, and Americans have reaped the benefits. Now Americans have the most to lose. Like gun and abortion rights, this is going to be a never-ending battle against the forces of darkness.
How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"?
IIRC, that's pretty much exactly what they did with the financial sector throughout the last twenty years.
So you are saying that there were fewer pages of SEC rules in 2008 (when the crash happened) than in 1988? Someone please confirm this, I am very curious.
Sorry, but all the disposal problems have not been solved. There is one remaining issue of "environmentalist" obstructionism. I use quotes, because these people are damaging the environment, not protecting it.
How about if you are a struggling indie band, trying to make a name for yourself. If the RIAA and the major labels were to vanish, would your task not be a lot easier?
The RIAA bias accusation was not against/., it was against Wikipedia and Google, who (according to the RIAA), "purport to be neutral sources of information".
The NYT also purports to be neutral, but that does not stop them from running editorials. I don't think that Wikipedia and Google pretended that their opposition to SOPA / PIPA was neutral reporting. Censorship? If it walks like a duck...
Having unencrypted police communication is a clear deficiency, and now that this agency is fixing it... lets just let them do it and stop looking for ways to make it as deficient as it used to be....The reasoning the police give for having privacy is a lot more realistic: to deny criminals the ability to track police actions.
This sounds contrived. Can you provide one example of a situation where the police were endangered because someone was listening to a police scanner and created a situation where they would not have been caught the criminals? I doubt it.
"Freedom of speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
2. failure to provide the governed human Citizen-Americans an independent [of the USA, Inc. scope and authority], an exclusive right of the governed human citizen-American to investigate, depose witnesses, charge, indite, prosecute, convict and punish those persons[human or corporate] acting in, or for, or under color of our government.
No, the framers of the Constitution did something much simpler. They did not give the government the power to give favors, pick winners or provide them with any goodies that would provide an incentive for lobbyists even to exist. In which case, the need for 1. disappears.
Absolutely, if you knew it was poison. But if the elected town chief and witchdoctor told you the mushrooms were ok, you would have some wriggle room. Maybe it would be better not to have a well?
I guess the sugar companies will be hounded, just like the tobacco companies and Monsanto, while the actual producers (farmers) continue to be subsidized.
Government oversight can prevent instances of harm, to the benefit of those affected. However, I believe the overall, nett effect on society is negative. For example, since DDT was banned worldwide, how many have died from malaria, against what benefit? Some argue that when human life is at stake, no cost is too high. I obviously disagree.
"The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." Henry David Thoreau
If your city was sued, it means that there was a law that the courts ruled on a law.
No, there is Common Law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law, in particular "The common law evolves to meet changing social needs and improved understanding".
If you intend to stop any harm before it happens, then you may as well go and live in a cave (that new-fangled bow and arrow will surely put someone's eye out).
As usual with these things, it is more complicated than a sound bite. In 1892 the downstream town had dammed the river to power the numerous mills that were springing up. At the same time, the growing upstream city, for the first time, constructed a sewage collection system which discharged into the river. In itself considered a great environmental improvement. Both actions made the pollution situation a lot worse.
The suit was brought collectively by the mills and the local inhabitants (I think). Although the river was ultimately cleaned up, I doubt that any damages were paid. This is the way things were done back then. People have very little understanding how much their environment has improved over the last 200 years. You may say this is because of legislation and the EPA, but they relatively recent arrivals.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against any government involvement. Obviously the courts have a role to protect your rights not to have pollution dumped on you, especially if you are an individual of little means up against a large corporation. The government can also expedite and simplify the resolution of such conflicts. The problem is that the definition of harm is constantly changing. 100 years ago it was perfectly accepted to dump sewage in the river, have thousands of open coal fires in a city, horse manure everywhere in the streets. But I can't sue the city today because my grandfather caught dysentery in 1925. We strive to improve, but must look forwards, not backwards. If your perfect knowledge in the future makes you liable for your imperfect knowledge in the past, we will never progress.
Also, shit happens.
P.S. The mills are long gone, the dam has silted up, and the area is now a recreation area, particularly renowned to bird-watchers.
Regarding free markets. My city used to dump raw sewage in the river, until it was sued in 1925 by a downstream town for polluting the water. After a court case, a treatment plant was built - no EPA or federal government required, common law is sufficient.
This has been going on for years in the mattress industry. Identical products are sold under different labels, with huge markups. So there is an incentive to confound comparison shopping. They don't care about customer satisfaction or loyalty, because a mattress is not a frequent purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Tax Freedom Day this year is April 12. Today is March 21st, so everything I do today is for The State.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
I downloaded the same BSB album 1000 times. If everybody is doing the same thing, music industry losses must be astronomical!
Standards and regulations are updated on a regular basis by their issuing authorities. If Public.Resource.Org releases these into the wild, then they will be updated, by inserting a single comma, and reissued. This will invalidate the previous versions and force the purchase of a new set.
It's a good racket.
You probably want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia%E2%80%93United_States_relations before you assert that "US can't assert jurisdiction over Columbia's national domain."
The manufacturing sector has been hounded out of the US and now it is the turn of the most vigorous replacement industries (those based on the internet).
The reason the internet has been such a phenomenal success, with the most amazing record of growth ever, is that up to now the government has, perhaps unwittingly, kept its hands off. But there is nothing that the government can't improve, and they are going to improve the hell out of the internet.
I know I am picking on the USA. Up to now freedom has been greatest there, and Americans have reaped the benefits. Now Americans have the most to lose. Like gun and abortion rights, this is going to be a never-ending battle against the forces of darkness.
Support the EFF!
How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"?
IIRC, that's pretty much exactly what they did with the financial sector throughout the last twenty years.
So you are saying that there were fewer pages of SEC rules in 2008 (when the crash happened) than in 1988? Someone please confirm this, I am very curious.
Please read these articles for a well-reasoned response to your concerns:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
Sorry, but all the disposal problems have not been solved. There is one remaining issue of "environmentalist" obstructionism. I use quotes, because these people are damaging the environment, not protecting it.
Who will trust their files to a .com located in the USA?
If you didn't have subsidies in the first place, this would not be necessary. This is how good intentions and government spirals out of control.
And guys like him: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57373735-281/meet-richard-mack-republican-challenger-to-sopas-author
How about if you are a struggling indie band, trying to make a name for yourself. If the RIAA and the major labels were to vanish, would your task not be a lot easier?
The RIAA bias accusation was not against /., it was against Wikipedia and Google, who (according to the RIAA), "purport to be neutral sources of information".
The NYT also purports to be neutral, but that does not stop them from running editorials. I don't think that Wikipedia and Google pretended that their opposition to SOPA / PIPA was neutral reporting. Censorship? If it walks like a duck...
mod up
Having unencrypted police communication is a clear deficiency, and now that this agency is fixing it... lets just let them do it and stop looking for ways to make it as deficient as it used to be....The reasoning the police give for having privacy is a lot more realistic: to deny criminals the ability to track police actions.
This sounds contrived. Can you provide one example of a situation where the police were endangered because someone was listening to a police scanner and created a situation where they would not have been caught the criminals? I doubt it.
"Freedom of speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
These MBA types run companies into the ground regularly going for the cheapest alternative with no quality control or time requirements.
If the MBAs run the company into the ground, they they will also be out of a job, too? So the system works.
You need to cite some evidence to back up "regularly".
2. failure to provide the governed human Citizen-Americans an independent [of the USA, Inc. scope and authority], an exclusive right of the governed human citizen-American to investigate, depose witnesses, charge, indite, prosecute, convict and punish those persons[human or corporate] acting in, or for, or under color of our government.
No, the framers of the Constitution did something much simpler. They did not give the government the power to give favors, pick winners or provide them with any goodies that would provide an incentive for lobbyists even to exist. In which case, the need for 1. disappears.
The Constitution is not much observed these days.
Absolutely, if you knew it was poison. But if the elected town chief and witchdoctor told you the mushrooms were ok, you would have some wriggle room. Maybe it would be better not to have a well?
Today comes the news that "sugar is a toxic, addictive substance" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/01/BA891N1PQS.DTL
I guess the sugar companies will be hounded, just like the tobacco companies and Monsanto, while the actual producers (farmers) continue to be subsidized.
Government oversight can prevent instances of harm, to the benefit of those affected. However, I believe the overall, nett effect on society is negative. For example, since DDT was banned worldwide, how many have died from malaria, against what benefit? Some argue that when human life is at stake, no cost is too high. I obviously disagree.
Also, complexity hastens the downfall - http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X
"The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." Henry David Thoreau
If your city was sued, it means that there was a law that the courts ruled on a law.
No, there is Common Law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law, in particular "The common law evolves to meet changing social needs and improved understanding".
If you intend to stop any harm before it happens, then you may as well go and live in a cave (that new-fangled bow and arrow will surely put someone's eye out).
As usual with these things, it is more complicated than a sound bite. In 1892 the downstream town had dammed the river to power the numerous mills that were springing up. At the same time, the growing upstream city, for the first time, constructed a sewage collection system which discharged into the river. In itself considered a great environmental improvement. Both actions made the pollution situation a lot worse.
The suit was brought collectively by the mills and the local inhabitants (I think). Although the river was ultimately cleaned up, I doubt that any damages were paid. This is the way things were done back then. People have very little understanding how much their environment has improved over the last 200 years. You may say this is because of legislation and the EPA, but they relatively recent arrivals.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against any government involvement. Obviously the courts have a role to protect your rights not to have pollution dumped on you, especially if you are an individual of little means up against a large corporation. The government can also expedite and simplify the resolution of such conflicts. The problem is that the definition of harm is constantly changing. 100 years ago it was perfectly accepted to dump sewage in the river, have thousands of open coal fires in a city, horse manure everywhere in the streets. But I can't sue the city today because my grandfather caught dysentery in 1925. We strive to improve, but must look forwards, not backwards. If your perfect knowledge in the future makes you liable for your imperfect knowledge in the past, we will never progress.
Also, shit happens.
P.S. The mills are long gone, the dam has silted up, and the area is now a recreation area, particularly renowned to bird-watchers.
Agent Orange and its emotive supporters want to keep the revenue pump primed. Together with asbestos, this is productive government teat:
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_812.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_1629.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_2254.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_637.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_3491.html
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_972.html
etc., etc.
Regarding free markets. My city used to dump raw sewage in the river, until it was sued in 1925 by a downstream town for polluting the water. After a court case, a treatment plant was built - no EPA or federal government required, common law is sufficient.
If one person speeds on your street, they put up fuckin' speed bumps everywhere.
This has been going on for years in the mattress industry. Identical products are sold under different labels, with huge markups. So there is an incentive to confound comparison shopping. They don't care about customer satisfaction or loyalty, because a mattress is not a frequent purchase.
Long form, please, available to anybody who asks.
This could eliminate a lot of problems!