Because, for some reason, the courts and congress have, in their infinite wisdom, decreed that "freedom of the press" applies only to those news media in which an actual printing press is used.
I'm sure the fact that most such printing-press-related operations tend to be pro-government is completely un-related.
I suggest that the cure to "distorted" public discourse is more political speech, not less.
These campaign finance laws are all about limiting the quantity of speech, and your complaint is with the content of it. The people you want to thwart are still going to find ways of getting their message across. They've got the money to buy the lawyers to find the loophoes. And, in the mean time, if way of outside-the-establishment types want to put in our own two bits, we have to prove that we weren't contributing to a party. Heck, I don't even like the two-party system we've got, but if I buy some radio air-time to say so, I've "contributed" to a political party, by these rules! It's ridiculous!
And if we start getting into laws that regulate the content, you can look for even more pro-establishment favoratism.
When it comes to government corruption, more government is not the solution.
Oh, how I do wish this one dorm-neighbor of mine had had these... I would have so launched a DoS attack against him for playing his rap at all hours....
Well that's just it, why does *science* need to be *political*?... My entire arguement is that Politics shouldn't showboat science as it's bitch. Science needs to happen for the good of the human race, while politics does everything possible to stand in the human races' way.
Too true.
I see two main reasons science becomes political: 1) Scientists want government money. 2) Politicians want to control everything. They generally do this by giving out money.
I heard government money referred to yesterday as "free government money", but it's not, even though people think it is. It always comes with strings attached (vote for me or you'll lose what I'm giving you!)... and it's always taken out of someone else's pocket.
I like to donate to a local big-name childrens' medical research facility when I can, and that's the way I think it should be done, through private donations. Let the scientists convince the citizens that the research is worth the money. Unfortunately, I can't give any more than I do. Too much of my money is being taxed away from me. That's not boasting, or excuse-making, it's just the way it is.
And stop making traffic violations a means to subsidize taxes.
Am I the only one who has issues with the very idea of creating crimes and guilt for the purpose of boosting government income? I mean, I know speeding tickets are hardly enough to get upset about, but still. It's the principle that bugs me.
And if the bigwigs with the political pull don't like the way you voted, they'll put the issue up for a vote again, maybe changing just a few words until it sounds different. And again, and again, until "the people" get it "right".
Dude, you're getting your units mixed up. The question is, how many grizzly bears are there in a Volkswagon? And is that in circus or non-circus units?
Westerner that I am, I've never really heard anywhere what the real differences between sunni and shi'ite are. I have been told that in some parts of the world, the differences are so virulent that a sunni will tear up a shi'ite's Koran, and vice versa, even though it's the same Koran, just for the insult value. For the life of me, I can't make sense of it.
I have been told that it's a good idea to "Keep on the sunni side, always on the sunni side...."
They always do, don't they? As if breaking into my computer and spying on me qualified as "commerce". Commerce is when there's a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Calling this trespass "commerce" is an insult to honest business everywhere.
Takea specifically mentioned the 10th amendment. That is, the part of the Constitution that says that every business not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up to the States or locals to figure out, and the Feds have no business sticking their schnoz in it. Trespassing isn't something you go to the Feds for, nor is simple theft, etc, etc.
Now my two bits: I see spyware as an act of trespass. My computer is my private property, as much as my house. My computer and my house are both extensions of my person: I've spent an irreplacable portion of my life laboring to acquire them, and investing in them. If you're in my house without my knowledge or permission, you're trespassing. Even if all you do is look around, or harmlessly rearrange the furniture, you're violating my property rights. Ditto for my computer. It doesn't matter how benevolent or malicious you are, if I haven't invited you in, you're trespassing.
The problem as I see it is this: We've got a lot of groups out there, from script kiddies to impersonal mega-corporations, who don't get the idea of respecting the private property rights of individuals. Only government has the power to keep them in check, and even the government doesn't respect our individual ownership rights (eminent domain abuse, drug war laws enabling confiscation without warrant, etc). The past few generations have been learning a whats-yours-is-mine attitude. That's the problem.
Giving someone money isn't speech. If it was then I could "speak" to the police office with a couple of bucks to get out of a ticket. Money != Speech.
Your right to speak doesn't put on me any obligation to listen, or to respond in the way you want. "You're under arrest." "But I donated to the police widows-and-orphans-fund!" "How very kind of you. You're still under arrest."
If two-minutes-plus of silence can be a musical performance, money can be speech, for all I care.
2) What prevents such people from running other plants?
After TMI, nuclear power professionals in the U.S. realized they had a choice. They could let the government step in and regulate every little detail of safety, in the name of public interest, or they could find a way to do it themselves.
They figured out a way to to it themselves. One of the major steps they took was to set up an Institute where I once did a bit of programming work. The purpose of this Institute is to facilitate technical information-sharing and to push excellence through industry peer pressure. It works because everyone involved knows, with rock-solid certainty, that there may be no more second chances. So, it's in everyone's interest to do whatever's necessary to make sure disaster doesn't strike twice in this country.
As a result, the Nuclear Power Industry in the U.S. is the best example I know of when it comes to industry self-regulation. There's a great book about it, Hostages of Each Other, by Joseph Rees. An easy read, and most enlightening.
More to the point, can anyone explain why this would be inefficient for the system as a whole?
Managing bus services isn't my line of work, but I can give it a shot.
For starters, I'm guessing the "bunching problem" would lead to inefficiencies, for one thing, in passenger loading: The 9:15 bus and the 9:20 bus are both bound along the same route. The first bus is early, the second bus is late... meaning that the first bus ends up overcrowded (grouchy customers), and the second bus departs from the stop under capacity (same amount of fuel spent whether carrying one passenger or twenty).
There's also the problem of limited resources. Say you've got more shuttle busses than shuttle bus loading spaces at a certain airport. I look at the international airport in my town, and I see shuttles for several park-and-ride services, countless conference centers, every high-class hotel in several hours' drive, not to mention the usual collection of Grayhound, metro transit authority, touring companies, and so on. The optimal situation would have an empty space ready for each bus as it arrives, so the passengers wouldn't have to wait to disembark. As things get more chaotic, though, they get less optimal. That's all there is to it.
Talking about changing passenger perceptions, though, reminded me.... My page-a-day calendar at work had a bit about how the London rail service managed to fix a problem with chronically late trains without spending any money at all. They simply redefined "on time" to include any train up to an hour late. Problem solved, right?
Had a friend with a Red Hat box on the school network. First time he'd ever run Linux, didn't know about securing it. He got 0wned. Network admin found out that his machine was flooding the network, cut off his access. Friend went to ask about the cut off access, and got a stern talking-to from the network admin. Walked away knowing how to secure his box, and also knowing that he'd been lucky to walk off with a warning. That said warning wouldn't happen a second time.
Simple rule: Follow the letter of the policy, and you're safe. Follow the intent of the policy, and you're safer.
Moral of the story: It's not parents punishing kids that leads to disciplined kids. It's kids knowing that the threat of punishment is real, and that mercy only goes so far, that leads to kids knowing that consequences happen.
Slashdot Mirror
"Where do yoooooooooooooooooooooou want to go today?"
Why are blogs persecuted, but newspapers are not?
Because, for some reason, the courts and congress have, in their infinite wisdom, decreed that "freedom of the press" applies only to those news media in which an actual printing press is used.
I'm sure the fact that most such printing-press-related operations tend to be pro-government is completely un-related.
What, are you trying to tell us that the acronym doesn't stand for In My Holy Opinion?
I suggest that the cure to "distorted" public discourse is more political speech, not less.
These campaign finance laws are all about limiting the quantity of speech, and your complaint is with the content of it. The people you want to thwart are still going to find ways of getting their message across. They've got the money to buy the lawyers to find the loophoes. And, in the mean time, if way of outside-the-establishment types want to put in our own two bits, we have to prove that we weren't contributing to a party. Heck, I don't even like the two-party system we've got, but if I buy some radio air-time to say so, I've "contributed" to a political party, by these rules! It's ridiculous!
And if we start getting into laws that regulate the content, you can look for even more pro-establishment favoratism.
When it comes to government corruption, more government is not the solution.
Oh, how I do wish this one dorm-neighbor of mine had had these... I would have so launched a DoS attack against him for playing his rap at all hours....
Yeah, but which Planet Starbucks? Seems to be at least one in every solar system these days, sometimes two or three!
Well that's just it, why does *science* need to be *political*? ... My entire arguement is that Politics shouldn't showboat science as it's bitch. Science needs to happen for the good of the human race, while politics does everything possible to stand in the human races' way.
Too true.
I see two main reasons science becomes political:
1) Scientists want government money.
2) Politicians want to control everything. They generally do this by giving out money.
I heard government money referred to yesterday as "free government money", but it's not, even though people think it is. It always comes with strings attached (vote for me or you'll lose what I'm giving you!)... and it's always taken out of someone else's pocket.
I like to donate to a local big-name childrens' medical research facility when I can, and that's the way I think it should be done, through private donations. Let the scientists convince the citizens that the research is worth the money. Unfortunately, I can't give any more than I do. Too much of my money is being taxed away from me. That's not boasting, or excuse-making, it's just the way it is.
And stop making traffic violations a means to subsidize taxes.
Am I the only one who has issues with the very idea of creating crimes and guilt for the purpose of boosting government income? I mean, I know speeding tickets are hardly enough to get upset about, but still. It's the principle that bugs me.
And if the bigwigs with the political pull don't like the way you voted, they'll put the issue up for a vote again, maybe changing just a few words until it sounds different. And again, and again, until "the people" get it "right".
Dude, you're getting your units mixed up. The question is, how many grizzly bears are there in a Volkswagon? And is that in circus or non-circus units?
Westerner that I am, I've never really heard anywhere what the real differences between sunni and shi'ite are. I have been told that in some parts of the world, the differences are so virulent that a sunni will tear up a shi'ite's Koran, and vice versa, even though it's the same Koran, just for the insult value. For the life of me, I can't make sense of it.
I have been told that it's a good idea to "Keep on the sunni side, always on the sunni side...."
They always do, don't they? As if breaking into my computer and spying on me qualified as "commerce". Commerce is when there's a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Calling this trespass "commerce" is an insult to honest business everywhere.
Takea specifically mentioned the 10th amendment. That is, the part of the Constitution that says that every business not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up to the States or locals to figure out, and the Feds have no business sticking their schnoz in it. Trespassing isn't something you go to the Feds for, nor is simple theft, etc, etc.
Now my two bits: I see spyware as an act of trespass. My computer is my private property, as much as my house. My computer and my house are both extensions of my person: I've spent an irreplacable portion of my life laboring to acquire them, and investing in them. If you're in my house without my knowledge or permission, you're trespassing. Even if all you do is look around, or harmlessly rearrange the furniture, you're violating my property rights. Ditto for my computer. It doesn't matter how benevolent or malicious you are, if I haven't invited you in, you're trespassing.
The problem as I see it is this: We've got a lot of groups out there, from script kiddies to impersonal mega-corporations, who don't get the idea of respecting the private property rights of individuals. Only government has the power to keep them in check, and even the government doesn't respect our individual ownership rights (eminent domain abuse, drug war laws enabling confiscation without warrant, etc). The past few generations have been learning a whats-yours-is-mine attitude. That's the problem.
You gotta start charging high if you're gonna raise the capital to develop the technology to make it available to everyone.
And it's when you can start making it available to everyone that you can start making serious money.
Look at refrigerators, microwaves, cars. All of them originally rich peoples' toys, but nowadays, they're nothing special at all.
And none of it was made a bit easier by class warfare games.
No one else seems to be immune to identity theft these days....
What sharp wit.
Y'know, I think I've seen that same function in some code at my office.... Just change the names a bit....
I also have lots of holy water from the Dead Sea in Israel
What good is it going to do you if it's way over in Israel? Wouldn't it be better to to have it nearby?
(Insert rimshot)
Giving someone money isn't speech. If it was then I could "speak" to the police office with a couple of bucks to get out of a ticket. Money != Speech.
Your right to speak doesn't put on me any obligation to listen, or to respond in the way you want. "You're under arrest." "But I donated to the police widows-and-orphans-fund!" "How very kind of you. You're still under arrest."
If two-minutes-plus of silence can be a musical performance, money can be speech, for all I care.
2) What prevents such people from running other plants?
After TMI, nuclear power professionals in the U.S. realized they had a choice. They could let the government step in and regulate every little detail of safety, in the name of public interest, or they could find a way to do it themselves.
They figured out a way to to it themselves. One of the major steps they took was to set up an Institute where I once did a bit of programming work. The purpose of this Institute is to facilitate technical information-sharing and to push excellence through industry peer pressure. It works because everyone involved knows, with rock-solid certainty, that there may be no more second chances. So, it's in everyone's interest to do whatever's necessary to make sure disaster doesn't strike twice in this country.
As a result, the Nuclear Power Industry in the U.S. is the best example I know of when it comes to industry self-regulation. There's a great book about it, Hostages of Each Other, by Joseph Rees. An easy read, and most enlightening.
Careful, folks might start submitting Jay Leno jokes under a topic icon like that.
More to the point, can anyone explain why this would be inefficient for the system as a whole?
Managing bus services isn't my line of work, but I can give it a shot.
For starters, I'm guessing the "bunching problem" would lead to inefficiencies, for one thing, in passenger loading: The 9:15 bus and the 9:20 bus are both bound along the same route. The first bus is early, the second bus is late... meaning that the first bus ends up overcrowded (grouchy customers), and the second bus departs from the stop under capacity (same amount of fuel spent whether carrying one passenger or twenty).
There's also the problem of limited resources. Say you've got more shuttle busses than shuttle bus loading spaces at a certain airport. I look at the international airport in my town, and I see shuttles for several park-and-ride services, countless conference centers, every high-class hotel in several hours' drive, not to mention the usual collection of Grayhound, metro transit authority, touring companies, and so on. The optimal situation would have an empty space ready for each bus as it arrives, so the passengers wouldn't have to wait to disembark. As things get more chaotic, though, they get less optimal. That's all there is to it.
Talking about changing passenger perceptions, though, reminded me.... My page-a-day calendar at work had a bit about how the London rail service managed to fix a problem with chronically late trains without spending any money at all. They simply redefined "on time" to include any train up to an hour late. Problem solved, right?
Sadly, it costs a lot of money to exercise free speech in America.
Not that I make a habit of replying to sigs, but yours prompted me to think for a moment....
Speaking is free. It's actively expanding your potential audience that consumes resources.
Uninformed behavior != Irresponsible behavior.
Had a friend with a Red Hat box on the school network. First time he'd ever run Linux, didn't know about securing it. He got 0wned. Network admin found out that his machine was flooding the network, cut off his access. Friend went to ask about the cut off access, and got a stern talking-to from the network admin. Walked away knowing how to secure his box, and also knowing that he'd been lucky to walk off with a warning. That said warning wouldn't happen a second time.
Simple rule: Follow the letter of the policy, and you're safe. Follow the intent of the policy, and you're safer.
Moral of the story: It's not parents punishing kids that leads to disciplined kids. It's kids knowing that the threat of punishment is real, and that mercy only goes so far, that leads to kids knowing that consequences happen.
Sorry, Austin Powers is on TV, and I just can't help it...
<DrEvil>
You must pay me... Sixty five Billion Dollars! Muahahahaha!
</DrEvil>
Okay, I'm better now....