And after itunes.com and other sellers are driven-out by Comcast's decision to give-away free MP3s, all that will be left is the Comast monopoly. That's better?
>>>"Hello, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to talk to [ my rep ] about technical issues being proposed / in the news / reflecting the upcoming election. >
Several times. They just don't listen. For example I spoke to my Senator about the DTV conversion, and how the power levels were set too low for VHF channels 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 such that they could not be received with the indoor antennas most viewers use. He thanked me and then promptly did nothing.
Next I talked to him about Comcast's monopoly and how it is working to "lock up" television programming (cable shows) behind walls, such that only Comcast subscribers could access them, but not Verizon subscribers (like me). He gave told me he supports net neutrality and that's why he's not going to interfere with Comcast's running of its business and he sees nothing wrong with the practice. (Huh?) I later checked and found he gets million from Comcast in contributions.
And of course I've witnessed what's happening with the townhalls, where he basically told the people he's not listening to their cries to "leave my healthcare alone". He's taken a Nixon-like tactic of saying there's a silent majority and he's serving them. (I would argue if such a majority existed, it should speak up not be silent.)
Democracy doesn't work if the reps refuse to hear what we're saying.
>>>Surely, defence should be left to corporations, right?
It is. Virtually everything the military buys originated in a competitive bidding process amongst many corporations. The equipment comes from several thousand companies.
The only reason why the Army fights wars, rather than corporations, is the same reason why we have monopolies in electrical service or phone service - it's a natural monopoly where having multiple providers is not practical.
>>>any notion of having a minor part of the entire market partly contributed to by the Government, such as a national health service
Minor??? According to Obama himself it's 1/5th of the economy. Worse - it's a monopoly. I hear people complain all the time about the monopolies run by Microsoft or Comcast, but why is a monopoly run by Uncle Sam any better? It isn't.
>>>Murdocks organs; they are extremist far-right wing.
That's funny because when you watch FOX News snippets on youtube, a LOT of the American posters call FOX News "liberal leaning". They even call Glenn Beck as "pro big government" guy, if you can believe that. What people don't seem to understand is that in-between I-5 on the west and I-95 on the east, there is a HUGE space filled with with farmlands, and the people that live there are extremely anti-government and very pro-"do it yourself" aka independent. To them FOX would seem left-leaning.
The only way to really know is to conduct studies, and study-after-study has shown that FOX News lies just slightly-right of the average American viewpoint, while the other channels (ABC,PBS,MSNBC,CNN) lie to the left or the far-left (CBS), again relative to the average American.
Murdoch may sound "powerful" but it's nothing compared to how much General Electric (GE) controls through its NBC Universal empire. They own about 10 different channels in the U.S. alone, plus pans-Europe Union broadcasts, and satellite networks in Australia and Japan.
NBC-U also controls the broadcast of the Olympics in North America for ~25 years (1992 to 2016), and just launched an all-sports channel called NBC-U Sports which is available free-of-charge, in hopes of beating ESPN (which charges $3/month in subscriber fees).
>>>I've never seen a left leaning news outlet that was mainstream. Alternative papers, web sites, sure. Television networks, no.
Every time you turn-on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS they are reporting about how we need more programs and bigger government (and therefore a loss of individual liberty). If that's not a left/liberal bias, I don't know what is.
No which is why a federal judge should issue a warrant to obtain a copy of the DMCA notice and determine if it actually exists, or if Flickr is abusing federal law and needs to be fined.
More studies than I can list here have found that TV media lies to the left (liberal) compared to the average American viewpoint. The only one that does not is FOX News which is about 4 percentage points right-of-center.
>>>you think we now have right to force a company to explain why it did something with its own property?
Except they specifically placed the blame on the U.S. Government. "We must comply with takedown notices under the DMCA, else we'll be fined or arrested." Therefore we the people have the right to know if the notice actually exists, or if a corporation is abusing our laws for its own nefarious purposes.
If Flickr had just said, "We didn't like the image," that would have been just fine with me. As you said it's their right. But to blame the People's government for the action is crossing a line in my humble opinion, and requires further investigation by the federal courts.
Ah yes. A common myth about the "illiterate past" that is simply not true.
According to de Tocqueville who traveled the U.S. and documented what he saw, the literacy rate during Thomas Jefferson's term (circa 1804) was nearly 100%. Parents bought "readers" for their children and expected these kids to self-teach themselves how to read and write. They recognized that their new Republic would only work if the voters were educated enough to read the weekly newspapers.
By 1906 every state had mandatory education upto 9th grade, so "the chance" your average American knew 7th grade math was effectively 99.9%.
I'm reaching that point to. About a month ago when my brother went on vacation he asked me to pick-up his paper from his drive, and that he'd pay me for it. He gave me $10 and said, "Is that enough?" so I said, "Actually it cost me $12 in gasoline, so if you could give me two more dollars....." He had a fit and gave me an hour-long lecture about how family members should help one another.
I then reminded him that I gave him his first computer in 1999, another one in 2001, and a *brand new* computer in 2003, in total about $1000 worth of equipment, plus tons of weekends teaching him how to surf the net and/or fixing problems he encountered with his equipment ("My printer won't work - I'm afraid it's broke. Help me!"). Therefore I don't think my asking to be reimburse me for my gasoline is NOT unreasonable, especially since HE ASKED if it was enough.
That shut him up. Just because you're family doesn't entitle you to take-advantage of other members.
No it isn't pedophilia. The biological definition of "child" is a sterile member of the species. When an individual passes puberty and is no longer sterile, than he/she is no longer a child.
>>>The Constitution gives Congress the duty to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" >>>
That's only the first half of the sentence. You need to read the WHOLE sentence. To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "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."
We already had Walmart announce they were shutting-down their music store (2008), which meant people's purchased music would stop working. And do you know how the general populace responded?
Nothing.
Corporations can get-away with these abuses of power as long as the People remain silent.
Or as Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party put it more eloquently - "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. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and 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." (1820)
and...
"the Federal Judiciary - an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into just one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)
That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.;-)
The founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson said that, since the laws exist to serve the People, then the laws should be written in plain English so the people can understand them. Per usual today's politicians ignore the good ideas and instead embrace the bad (make today's bills unreadable and nigh-impossible to understand).
More entertaining videos. None of these involve beatings, but you have to wonder, why is it necessary to harass citizens who have never crossed an international border??? And yes I know the response will be, "Just answer the questions," to which I respond with a 1940s German accent, "Yes just give-in to the jackbooted guy. Take your yellow star and sew it onto your clothes like a good citizen. Don't cause trouble and no trouble will come to you. (cough)"
"The principal protection... lies in appropriate limitations in the stop." - US v. Martinez. The case then continues that they are NOT allowed to stop every car, only selected cars, nor are they allowed to search the car without a warrant.
Is it reasonable to search people at the borders? I think so - it's the job of the U.S. to protect from foreign enemies entering domestic soil. Is it reasonable to search me, my car, or my laptop if I'm driving down I-10 from California to Texas, or I=90 from Washington to Maine, enjoying my vacation, and never once crossed the border? Absolutely not. And yet they do it all the time. This needs to be stopped.
>>>establish checkpoints on public highways in the vicinity of the Mexican border, even if those checkpoints are not at the actual border.
Yes these checkpoints are allowed, but the U.S. Supreme Court has laid ground rules. They are not allowed to stop every car, nor are they allowed to search the cars they do stop, unless they first obtain a warrant. These checkpoints have been abused for awhile, with guards even yanking innocent citizens from their cars and beating them. LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMZUgmrJrk VICTIM TELLS HIS STORY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
This is why the American Founders revolted against the British Empire, and wrote a Constitution to protect individuals from these kinds of abuses. They were tired of having their individual human rights violated (soldiers quartered in private homes, taxation without representation, et cetera), and wanted to make sure their new government was restrained from doing the same.
>>>Congrats - you're the first (of many) posts by people who have not read the entire Constitution. UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant, not ALL searches. It's up to the courts to determine after the fact whether someone's rights were violated >>>
False. If YOU read the Constitution you would know the courts are supposed to issue warrants BEFORE the search, not after (ex post facto). As for "reasonableness", is it reasonable to search people at the borders? I think so - it's the job of the U.S. to protect from foreign enemies entering domestic soil.
Is it reasonable to search me, my car, or my laptop if I'm on driving-down I-10 from California to Texas, and never crossed the border? Absolutely not. And yet they do it all the time. This needs to be stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
And after itunes.com and other sellers are driven-out by Comcast's decision to give-away free MP3s, all that will be left is the Comast monopoly. That's better?
Ewww.
It's official. I'm selling my Linux laptop. I don't want to associate with people like that.
>>>I've been watching my wife grow up for several decades now,
Say what???
"In a general sense, the conclusion of puberty is reproductive maturity." - wikipedia
"Why yes Chris, having sex with Miley was worth every month I spend in jail. You should try it sometime."
Baseball affects me?
I'm not even sure what baseball is. Why I am I paying to subsidize this?
>>>"Hello, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to talk to [ my rep ] about technical issues being proposed / in the news / reflecting the upcoming election.
>
Several times. They just don't listen. For example I spoke to my Senator about the DTV conversion, and how the power levels were set too low for VHF channels 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 such that they could not be received with the indoor antennas most viewers use. He thanked me and then promptly did nothing.
Next I talked to him about Comcast's monopoly and how it is working to "lock up" television programming (cable shows) behind walls, such that only Comcast subscribers could access them, but not Verizon subscribers (like me). He gave told me he supports net neutrality and that's why he's not going to interfere with Comcast's running of its business and he sees nothing wrong with the practice. (Huh?) I later checked and found he gets million from Comcast in contributions.
And of course I've witnessed what's happening with the townhalls, where he basically told the people he's not listening to their cries to "leave my healthcare alone". He's taken a Nixon-like tactic of saying there's a silent majority and he's serving them. (I would argue if such a majority existed, it should speak up not be silent.)
Democracy doesn't work if the reps refuse to hear what we're saying.
P.S.
>>>Surely, defence should be left to corporations, right?
It is. Virtually everything the military buys originated in a competitive bidding process amongst many corporations. The equipment comes from several thousand companies.
The only reason why the Army fights wars, rather than corporations, is the same reason why we have monopolies in electrical service or phone service - it's a natural monopoly where having multiple providers is not practical.
>>>any notion of having a minor part of the entire market partly contributed to by the Government, such as a national health service
Minor??? According to Obama himself it's 1/5th of the economy. Worse - it's a monopoly. I hear people complain all the time about the monopolies run by Microsoft or Comcast, but why is a monopoly run by Uncle Sam any better? It isn't.
>>>Murdocks organs; they are extremist far-right wing.
That's funny because when you watch FOX News snippets on youtube, a LOT of the American posters call FOX News "liberal leaning". They even call Glenn Beck as "pro big government" guy, if you can believe that. What people don't seem to understand is that in-between I-5 on the west and I-95 on the east, there is a HUGE space filled with with farmlands, and the people that live there are extremely anti-government and very pro-"do it yourself" aka independent. To them FOX would seem left-leaning.
The only way to really know is to conduct studies, and study-after-study has shown that FOX News lies just slightly-right of the average American viewpoint, while the other channels (ABC,PBS,MSNBC,CNN) lie to the left or the far-left (CBS), again relative to the average American.
Murdoch may sound "powerful" but it's nothing compared to how much General Electric (GE) controls through its NBC Universal empire. They own about 10 different channels in the U.S. alone, plus pans-Europe Union broadcasts, and satellite networks in Australia and Japan.
NBC-U also controls the broadcast of the Olympics in North America for ~25 years (1992 to 2016), and just launched an all-sports channel called NBC-U Sports which is available free-of-charge, in hopes of beating ESPN (which charges $3/month in subscriber fees).
NBC-U has their fingers in almost everything.
>>>I've never seen a left leaning news outlet that was mainstream. Alternative papers, web sites, sure. Television networks, no.
Every time you turn-on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or PBS they are reporting about how we need more programs and bigger government (and therefore a loss of individual liberty). If that's not a left/liberal bias, I don't know what is.
>>>OK. So do you have any evidence of this?
No which is why a federal judge should issue a warrant to obtain a copy of the DMCA notice and determine if it actually exists, or if Flickr is abusing federal law and needs to be fined.
More studies than I can list here have found that TV media lies to the left (liberal) compared to the average American viewpoint. The only one that does not is FOX News which is about 4 percentage points right-of-center.
>>>you think we now have right to force a company to explain why it did something with its own property?
Except they specifically placed the blame on the U.S. Government. "We must comply with takedown notices under the DMCA, else we'll be fined or arrested." Therefore we the people have the right to know if the notice actually exists, or if a corporation is abusing our laws for its own nefarious purposes.
If Flickr had just said, "We didn't like the image," that would have been just fine with me. As you said it's their right. But to blame the People's government for the action is crossing a line in my humble opinion, and requires further investigation by the federal courts.
Ah yes. A common myth about the "illiterate past" that is simply not true.
According to de Tocqueville who traveled the U.S. and documented what he saw, the literacy rate during Thomas Jefferson's term (circa 1804) was nearly 100%. Parents bought "readers" for their children and expected these kids to self-teach themselves how to read and write. They recognized that their new Republic would only work if the voters were educated enough to read the weekly newspapers.
By 1906 every state had mandatory education upto 9th grade, so "the chance" your average American knew 7th grade math was effectively 99.9%.
I'm reaching that point to. About a month ago when my brother went on vacation he asked me to pick-up his paper from his drive, and that he'd pay me for it. He gave me $10 and said, "Is that enough?" so I said, "Actually it cost me $12 in gasoline, so if you could give me two more dollars....." He had a fit and gave me an hour-long lecture about how family members should help one another.
I then reminded him that I gave him his first computer in 1999, another one in 2001, and a *brand new* computer in 2003, in total about $1000 worth of equipment, plus tons of weekends teaching him how to surf the net and/or fixing problems he encountered with his equipment ("My printer won't work - I'm afraid it's broke. Help me!"). Therefore I don't think my asking to be reimburse me for my gasoline is NOT unreasonable, especially since HE ASKED if it was enough.
That shut him up. Just because you're family doesn't entitle you to take-advantage of other members.
No it isn't pedophilia. The biological definition of "child" is a sterile member of the species. When an individual passes puberty and is no longer sterile, than he/she is no longer a child.
>>>The Constitution gives Congress the duty to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare"
>>>
That's only the first half of the sentence. You need to read the WHOLE sentence. To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "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."
We already had Walmart announce they were shutting-down their music store (2008), which meant people's purchased music would stop working. And do you know how the general populace responded?
Nothing.
Corporations can get-away with these abuses of power as long as the People remain silent.
Or as Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party put it more eloquently - "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. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and 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." (1820)
and...
"the Federal Judiciary - an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into just one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)
More - http://www.indianchild.com/thomas_jefferson.htm
That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. ;-)
The founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson said that, since the laws exist to serve the People, then the laws should be written in plain English so the people can understand them. Per usual today's politicians ignore the good ideas and instead embrace the bad (make today's bills unreadable and nigh-impossible to understand).
P.S.
More entertaining videos. None of these involve beatings, but you have to wonder, why is it necessary to harass citizens who have never crossed an international border??? And yes I know the response will be, "Just answer the questions," to which I respond with a 1940s German accent, "Yes just give-in to the jackbooted guy. Take your yellow star and sew it onto your clothes like a good citizen. Don't cause trouble and no trouble will come to you. (cough)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/checkpointusa
"The principal protection... lies in appropriate limitations in the stop." - US v. Martinez. The case then continues that they are NOT allowed to stop every car, only selected cars, nor are they allowed to search the car without a warrant.
Is it reasonable to search people at the borders? I think so - it's the job of the U.S. to protect from foreign enemies entering domestic soil. Is it reasonable to search me, my car, or my laptop if I'm driving down I-10 from California to Texas, or I=90 from Washington to Maine, enjoying my vacation, and never once crossed the border? Absolutely not. And yet they do it all the time. This needs to be stopped.
>>>establish checkpoints on public highways in the vicinity of the Mexican border, even if those checkpoints are not at the actual border.
Yes these checkpoints are allowed, but the U.S. Supreme Court has laid ground rules. They are not allowed to stop every car, nor are they allowed to search the cars they do stop, unless they first obtain a warrant. These checkpoints have been abused for awhile, with guards even yanking innocent citizens from their cars and beating them. LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMZUgmrJrk VICTIM TELLS HIS STORY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
This is why the American Founders revolted against the British Empire, and wrote a Constitution to protect individuals from these kinds of abuses. They were tired of having their individual human rights violated (soldiers quartered in private homes, taxation without representation, et cetera), and wanted to make sure their new government was restrained from doing the same.
>>>Congrats - you're the first (of many) posts by people who have not read the entire Constitution. UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant, not ALL searches. It's up to the courts to determine after the fact whether someone's rights were violated
>>>
False. If YOU read the Constitution you would know the courts are supposed to issue warrants BEFORE the search, not after (ex post facto). As for "reasonableness", is it reasonable to search people at the borders? I think so - it's the job of the U.S. to protect from foreign enemies entering domestic soil.
Is it reasonable to search me, my car, or my laptop if I'm on driving-down I-10 from California to Texas, and never crossed the border? Absolutely not. And yet they do it all the time. This needs to be stopped.