(1) Wiccard was a horrible, horrible decision that effectively made citizens slaves to the whims of Congress. I consider it to be treasonous.
(2) I don't see how a case about WHEAT has any relevance to a case about modern computers that didn't even exist in ~1940.
(3) Wiccard v. Filburn has been effectively invalidated by several recent decisions. For example Congress attempted to ban guns with "school zones" on the basis that guns are part of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court nullified that law as it violated the separation of intrastate and interstate commerce. The SCOTUS has nullified a number of other laws on the basis of them being INTRAstate commerca and not within Congress' power.
(4) Also I think it worthwhile to consider what a Founding Father said regarding the *opinions* of the court: "Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. - "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... Their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
In other words, the Supreme Court has their opinion, and I have MY opinion. Also the U.S. District court has their opinion, and apparently the latter decided the FCC has no authority on intrastate commerce. Per. The. Written. Law. (which is supreme above everything, even the government)
>>>>>Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level. Therefore they are can choose which websites they will, or will not carry, to the local homes.
>> >>Bullshit. They have fiber crisscrossing state lines all over the country.
Somebody doesn't know how to read. Read the bolded part again. And read the sentence after that. The U.S. government has jurisdiction over the fibers crossing state lines. The U.S. government does *not* have jurisdiction over the local cables lying under your street. If Comcast wants to block rushlimbaugh.com from crossing over their local-area-network (buried coaxial cables), the U.S. government has no authority to force them to do so.
That power has been reserved to the State government.
>>>How exactly is saying that you have to resell (on reasonable terms) the monopoly that you are being given (OK, paying a paltry sum for) to others who will do work and give you a reasonable profit from "micromanaging"? >>>
Nothing but it wasn't the FCC or the U.S. that granted the monopoly. It was your State government. IT is the one holding the strings.
>>>Under what guise could anyone come under the impression that this isn't FCC Jurisdiction?
Well for one thing I read the Supreme Law of the land, which you apparently did not. It is quite clear that the FCC only has authority AMONG the states, not inside the states. The Law also says that communications/commerce regulation inside the state is reserved to the State government.
>>>a lot of states aren't doing so hot right now with their budgets
Your argument also works for why the National government would not "want" to regulate ISPs. The National government doesn't have any spare cash to spend either, for hiring additional employees at the FCC to monitor Comcast and others.
And also it's not a matter of "want". It's a matter of Law, and the Law is clear - the FCC has no authority beyond regulating commerce AMONG the states, not inside the states. The law makes clear that internal regulation is reserved to your State government. So lobby them.
Most likely ISPs could be regulated by the State PUC (public utility commission) without much difficulty.
For me net neutrality is being able to visit rushlimbaugh.com or rachelmaddow.com without my ISP blocking me, or charging an extra fee. i.e. All websites should be treated equally.
>>>>>Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition. >> >>In this case the government created the monopoly. Ever heard of franchise agreements?
(1) Rude insulting question because it assumes I'm stupid/ignorant. (2) How does my answer "yes" change what I said before? It doesn't. I still think the State government should regulate electrical, natural gas, phone, and internet monopolies. That is what State governments are for - to regulate within their own borders.
>>>Notice the word Communications. So it seems like they might have some authority here.
Yes the FCC has authority over commerce/communications AMONG the States. Not inside. Not over a local ISP that operates inside a town or county and does not cross the border. (Try reading the Supreme Law sometime.)
That's cute, but the FCC is subject to the Supreme Law of the land, just like every other part of the central U.S. government. And the Supreme Law says:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So you see the FCC has the power to regulate "communications" AMONG the states, not inside the states, and many ISPs operate within state lines, therefore the court reached the decision that Comcast is outside the central government's jurisdiction.
>>>I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news.
If you were thinking about moving to Europe, you might want to think again because I've been following EU politics and their leaders seem to be making a lot of dumbass, US-style decisions too.
>>>To my knowledge, nobody regulates foul language these days
The FCC forbids the use of foul language on broadcast, over-the-air television and radio. Also nudity (not allowed) on the grounds that it would be easy for a child to turnon an antenna-equipped TV or radio and see/hear something they should not be exposed too.
>>>For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce
Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level. Therefore they are can choose which websites they will, or will not carry, to the local homes.
Therefore I'd suggest you try lobbying your State government, and have them regulate Comcast, in the same fashion that they regulate the electrical and natural gas monopolies.
That would be true but the 1996 Bill tied no strings to the dollars. For example Congress typically says, "Raise your drinking age to 21, else your federal highway funds will be reduced by 5%."
Congress could have done something similar, mandating companies have equal access to all websites else get no funds, but they did not. As is typical of Cognress they handed corporations lots of money and no strings attached.
>>>no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.
That's equivalent to saying there's no need for the government to regulate the Gas & Electric companies, or the Phone company, because it would only benefit the monopoly. I say "bull" to that. Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.
The State government would have the power to regulate any monopolies inside its borders, including electrical providers, natural gas providers, phone companies, and yes Internet providers. - The local government/town that granted the exclusive license to Comcast also has the right to regulate, per the terms of the monopoly.
Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.
>>>Reading a lone pdf once in a while isn't worth having a massive security flaw
If only that were true. I encounter a PDF at least once a day. Just an hour ago I was reading a PDF about my college homecoming. If it had been possible to get the information some other way, I would have, but they only provided the giant poster in PDF form. - And earlier this morning I encountered a PDF while looking for Lubuntu (lean ubuntu) information.
So uninstalling a PDF Reader isn't really practical.
Everytime I think about it, I feel like gagging. If you're looking for anti-government dangers/threats, there are other people you can look too like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones or MEP Daniel Hannan, who don't pick their noses or eat their feet crud.
>>>he consistently sees dangers for what they are (or have the potential to be) long before most anyone else.
I'm willing to admit I might have been too quick to judge. Can you provide some examples of what "dangers" Stallman observed that others have not seen?
Really? OS 10.6 REQUIRES (key word) 1 gigabyte of RAM. No exceptions. Meanwhile Windows 7 suggests 1 GB but runs just fine on only half that. (I've also seen it running on 256 megabytes, albeit not very well.) POINT: Apple's OS appears to be twice as "bloated" as Microsoft's OS.
>>>TV's needing to be replaced every 5 years maximum or can't watch any new shows. Cd and radio players, DVD players, cars, trucks. These aren't acceptable, nor is it in a PC. So why is it for a Mac?
>>>And the user experience on that is going to be total and utter crap.
Perhaps but it should still be *up to the user* who owns the machine. I've seen people hack 10.5 to run on slower Macs (and thereby violate Apple's law/license), and OS 10.5 runs just fine even on a slow 400 megahertz unit. There was no reason for Apple to block those owners with the "You need to upgrade to 800MHz" message. .
>>>If there's one thing Apple pays attention to and cares about, its the user experience.
Like a mommy. I prefer not to be babied. If Apple wants to have SUGGESTED specs of 800MHz, fine, but blocking me is unacceptable. .
>>>Just look at the whole Vista fiasco.
Vice-versa Win7 recommends 1 gigabyte but will run just fine on half that. MS gives the power to the user to make his own decision. Apple gives the power to themselves ("No, no, no you can't do that") and treats users as children. Plus forces them to buy expensive new hardware because of it.
>>>Most of the jobs that actually pay a salary don't give a rat's ass about any F/OSS projects you've worked on.
That's because it's considered a hobby (not by me, but by HR persons). They have no way of measuring how much work you actually did on open-source development. It's not the same as paid experience where they KNOW you spent 40 hours/52 weeks doing it each year.
I wonder if they had these kinds of surveys in the 1800s or pre-WW2 1900s?
Somehow I can't imagine an engineer sitting in his primitive wood-paneled office and saying, "I wish I made more money," or "This job is not satsifactory." More likely he looked out his window at the distant farms and thought, 'I'm glad I don't have to shovel ____ for a living.'
This is modus operandi for Sony. They think like engineers, not customers, and are constantly tinkering with their projects:
- Betamax I became Betamax II which was the new standard for store-bought movies. Early adopters couldn't play these movies on their Beta-I machines.
- SuperBetamax increased the resolution to broadcast quality, and although Sony claimed it was a compatible standard, in reality it created strange white lines on older machines.
- Umatic became Umatic SP and Betacam became Betacam SP, which forced TV studios to upgrade to new machines.
- MiniDisc adopted new formats (codecs) which forced previous owners to throw-out their devices and buy new.
- The PS2 became the PS2slim which not only can't use a HDD (for final fantasy 11), but also isn't 99.9% compatible with older games like the original PS2 was.
- And now it appears Sony is doing the same thing with Bluray, and eventually the BRD Player I bought will not be able to play the new format.
>>>If computer gaming is "dead" then it's because there haven't been enough killer games out.
It's not dead. Just really, really tiny. Like the market for blank VHS tapes. And shrinking.
"There is no PC platform, really. It's just a mish-mosh of hardware, an operating system that kind of supports games."
I've been saying this for years. Back in the days of fixed hardware (Atari, Apple II, Commodore, Amiga) playing computer games was fun. All you had to do was pop-in the tape or disk, wait a few minutes for loading time, and then start playing. Standardized hardware provided a known platform for programmers.
But when I abandoned the Amiga platform in 1998 and tried to get into IBM PC/Windows gaming, it gave me a royal headache. A quarter of the games I purchased wouldn't run due to not having the right hardware, or bad drivers, or DIP switches not set properly on the card. After wasting a LOT of time and money and energy, I just gave up and bought into the simplicity of the PS2 instead. "It's just a mish-mosh of hardware" is precisely why PC gaming is shrinking. People simply don't want headaches.
Even today I find PC gaming frustrating. I purchased Wing Commander for some classic nostalgia, and it refused to run on XP. Also refused to run on my Win98 laptop. It's bullshit. - So instead I emulated an Amiga and ran WC on that instead. Flawless.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Wiccard was a horrible, horrible decision that effectively made citizens slaves to the whims of Congress. I consider it to be treasonous.
(2) I don't see how a case about WHEAT has any relevance to a case about modern computers that didn't even exist in ~1940.
(3) Wiccard v. Filburn has been effectively invalidated by several recent decisions. For example Congress attempted to ban guns with "school zones" on the basis that guns are part of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court nullified that law as it violated the separation of intrastate and interstate commerce. The SCOTUS has nullified a number of other laws on the basis of them being INTRAstate commerca and not within Congress' power.
(4) Also I think it worthwhile to consider what a Founding Father said regarding the *opinions* of the court: "Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. - "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... Their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
In other words, the Supreme Court has their opinion, and I have MY opinion. Also the U.S. District court has their opinion, and apparently the latter decided the FCC has no authority on intrastate commerce. Per. The. Written. Law. (which is supreme above everything, even the government)
>>>>>Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level. Therefore they are can choose which websites they will, or will not carry, to the local homes.
>>
>>Bullshit. They have fiber crisscrossing state lines all over the country.
Somebody doesn't know how to read. Read the bolded part again. And read the sentence after that. The U.S. government has jurisdiction over the fibers crossing state lines. The U.S. government does *not* have jurisdiction over the local cables lying under your street. If Comcast wants to block rushlimbaugh.com from crossing over their local-area-network (buried coaxial cables), the U.S. government has no authority to force them to do so.
That power has been reserved to the State government.
>>>How exactly is saying that you have to resell (on reasonable terms) the monopoly that you are being given (OK, paying a paltry sum for) to others who will do work and give you a reasonable profit from "micromanaging"?
>>>
Nothing but it wasn't the FCC or the U.S. that granted the monopoly.
It was your State government.
IT is the one holding the strings.
>>>Under what guise could anyone come under the impression that this isn't FCC Jurisdiction?
Well for one thing I read the Supreme Law of the land, which you apparently did not. It is quite clear that the FCC only has authority AMONG the states, not inside the states. The Law also says that communications/commerce regulation inside the state is reserved to the State government.
Read and Learn the law: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt especially your Bill of Rights number 9 and 10.
>>>a lot of states aren't doing so hot right now with their budgets
Your argument also works for why the National government would not "want" to regulate ISPs. The National government doesn't have any spare cash to spend either, for hiring additional employees at the FCC to monitor Comcast and others.
And also it's not a matter of "want". It's a matter of Law, and the Law is clear - the FCC has no authority beyond regulating commerce AMONG the states, not inside the states. The law makes clear that internal regulation is reserved to your State government. So lobby them.
Most likely ISPs could be regulated by the State PUC (public utility commission) without much difficulty.
For me net neutrality is being able to visit rushlimbaugh.com or rachelmaddow.com without my ISP blocking me, or charging an extra fee. i.e. All websites should be treated equally.
>>>>>Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.
>>
>>In this case the government created the monopoly. Ever heard of franchise agreements?
(1) Rude insulting question because it assumes I'm stupid/ignorant. (2) How does my answer "yes" change what I said before? It doesn't. I still think the State government should regulate electrical, natural gas, phone, and internet monopolies. That is what State governments are for - to regulate within their own borders.
>>>Notice the word Communications. So it seems like they might have some authority here.
Yes the FCC has authority over commerce/communications AMONG the States. Not inside. Not over a local ISP that operates inside a town or county and does not cross the border. (Try reading the Supreme Law sometime.)
That's cute, but the FCC is subject to the Supreme Law of the land, just like every other part of the central U.S. government. And the Supreme Law says:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So you see the FCC has the power to regulate "communications" AMONG the states, not inside the states, and many ISPs operate within state lines, therefore the court reached the decision that Comcast is outside the central government's jurisdiction.
>>>I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news.
If you were thinking about moving to Europe, you might want to think again because I've been following EU politics and their leaders seem to be making a lot of dumbass, US-style decisions too.
>>>To my knowledge, nobody regulates foul language these days
The FCC forbids the use of foul language on broadcast, over-the-air television and radio. Also nudity (not allowed) on the grounds that it would be easy for a child to turnon an antenna-equipped TV or radio and see/hear something they should not be exposed too.
>>>For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce
Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level. Therefore they are can choose which websites they will, or will not carry, to the local homes.
Therefore I'd suggest you try lobbying your State government, and have them regulate Comcast, in the same fashion that they regulate the electrical and natural gas monopolies.
That would be true but the 1996 Bill tied no strings to the dollars. For example Congress typically says, "Raise your drinking age to 21, else your federal highway funds will be reduced by 5%."
Congress could have done something similar, mandating companies have equal access to all websites else get no funds, but they did not. As is typical of Cognress they handed corporations lots of money and no strings attached.
>>>no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.
That's equivalent to saying there's no need for the government to regulate the Gas & Electric companies, or the Phone company, because it would only benefit the monopoly. I say "bull" to that. Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.
The State government would have the power to regulate any monopolies inside its borders, including electrical providers, natural gas providers, phone companies, and yes Internet providers. - The local government/town that granted the exclusive license to Comcast also has the right to regulate, per the terms of the monopoly.
Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.
>>>Reading a lone pdf once in a while isn't worth having a massive security flaw
If only that were true. I encounter a PDF at least once a day. Just an hour ago I was reading a PDF about my college homecoming. If it had been possible to get the information some other way, I would have, but they only provided the giant poster in PDF form. - And earlier this morning I encountered a PDF while looking for Lubuntu (lean ubuntu) information.
So uninstalling a PDF Reader isn't really practical.
Puppy Linux runs on root, so it would be vulnerable.
>>>doesn't affect most Linux PDF readers as far as I'm aware
Good point.
Ick.
Everytime I think about it, I feel like gagging. If you're looking for anti-government dangers/threats, there are other people you can look too like Glenn Beck or Alex Jones or MEP Daniel Hannan, who don't pick their noses or eat their feet crud.
>>>he consistently sees dangers for what they are (or have the potential to be) long before most anyone else.
I'm willing to admit I might have been too quick to judge. Can you provide some examples of what "dangers" Stallman observed that others have not seen?
>>>their OS boarders on bloatware...
Really? OS 10.6 REQUIRES (key word) 1 gigabyte of RAM. No exceptions. Meanwhile Windows 7 suggests 1 GB but runs just fine on only half that. (I've also seen it running on 256 megabytes, albeit not very well.) POINT: Apple's OS appears to be twice as "bloated" as Microsoft's OS.
>>>TV's needing to be replaced every 5 years maximum or can't watch any new shows. Cd and radio players, DVD players, cars, trucks. These aren't acceptable, nor is it in a PC. So why is it for a Mac?
It's like replacing your girl every 5 years. ;-)
>>>And the user experience on that is going to be total and utter crap.
Perhaps but it should still be *up to the user* who owns the machine. I've seen people hack 10.5 to run on slower Macs (and thereby violate Apple's law/license), and OS 10.5 runs just fine even on a slow 400 megahertz unit. There was no reason for Apple to block those owners with the "You need to upgrade to 800MHz" message.
.
>>>If there's one thing Apple pays attention to and cares about, its the user experience.
Like a mommy.
I prefer not to be babied.
If Apple wants to have SUGGESTED specs of 800MHz, fine, but blocking me is unacceptable.
.
>>>Just look at the whole Vista fiasco.
Vice-versa Win7 recommends 1 gigabyte but will run just fine on half that. MS gives the power to the user to make his own decision. Apple gives the power to themselves ("No, no, no you can't do that") and treats users as children. Plus forces them to buy expensive new hardware because of it.
>>>Most of the jobs that actually pay a salary don't give a rat's ass about any F/OSS projects you've worked on.
That's because it's considered a hobby (not by me, but by HR persons). They have no way of measuring how much work you actually did on open-source development. It's not the same as paid experience where they KNOW you spent 40 hours/52 weeks doing it each year.
I wonder if they had these kinds of surveys in the 1800s or pre-WW2 1900s?
Somehow I can't imagine an engineer sitting in his primitive wood-paneled office and saying, "I wish I made more money," or "This job is not satsifactory." More likely he looked out his window at the distant farms and thought, 'I'm glad I don't have to shovel ____ for a living.'
This is modus operandi for Sony. They think like engineers, not customers, and are constantly tinkering with their projects:
- Betamax I became Betamax II which was the new standard for store-bought movies. Early adopters couldn't play these movies on their Beta-I machines.
- SuperBetamax increased the resolution to broadcast quality, and although Sony claimed it was a compatible standard, in reality it created strange white lines on older machines.
- Umatic became Umatic SP and Betacam became Betacam SP, which forced TV studios to upgrade to new machines.
- MiniDisc adopted new formats (codecs) which forced previous owners to throw-out their devices and buy new.
- The PS2 became the PS2slim which not only can't use a HDD (for final fantasy 11), but also isn't 99.9% compatible with older games like the original PS2 was.
- And now it appears Sony is doing the same thing with Bluray, and eventually the BRD Player I bought will not be able to play the new format.
>>>If computer gaming is "dead" then it's because there haven't been enough killer games out.
It's not dead. Just really, really tiny. Like the market for blank VHS tapes. And shrinking.
"There is no PC platform, really. It's just a mish-mosh of hardware, an operating system that kind of supports games."
I've been saying this for years. Back in the days of fixed hardware (Atari, Apple II, Commodore, Amiga) playing computer games was fun. All you had to do was pop-in the tape or disk, wait a few minutes for loading time, and then start playing. Standardized hardware provided a known platform for programmers.
But when I abandoned the Amiga platform in 1998 and tried to get into IBM PC/Windows gaming, it gave me a royal headache. A quarter of the games I purchased wouldn't run due to not having the right hardware, or bad drivers, or DIP switches not set properly on the card. After wasting a LOT of time and money and energy, I just gave up and bought into the simplicity of the PS2 instead. "It's just a mish-mosh of hardware" is precisely why PC gaming is shrinking. People simply don't want headaches.
Even today I find PC gaming frustrating. I purchased Wing Commander for some classic nostalgia, and it refused to run on XP. Also refused to run on my Win98 laptop. It's bullshit. - So instead I emulated an Amiga and ran WC on that instead. Flawless.