In the first century BC a man named Spartacus also tried to "secede" and bring freedom to slaves. That didn't go so well either (the rebels were killed), but does that mean Spartacus and his followers were wrong?
A French citizen could be punished for selling a porn video to a 12-year-old British kid (by mail-order). He would be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned in France for violating the UK law.
The problem is that the UK law is now voided by the EU treaty, so that French person should be freed, because it's as if the law never existed.
Hardly. The Roman Empire's strength came from the accumulated wealth it acquired when it defeated Carthage, Egypt, and Palestine. It's why the western half collapsed, but the eastern half survived until almost 1500 A.D.
None of these crucial regions are part of the modern EU which really traces its roots back to the Empire of Charlemagne (which extended from Spain to Poland), and the earlier barbarian tribes.
>>>If you're recording digital, there's no way that a raw stream capture will be worse.
That's the thing. Not all DVRs record the raw video. In fact most of them recompress the data to make it fit onto the hard drive. My Standard Definition DVR suffers from compression artifacts whereas a Super VHS recording does not. The DVR looks pixelated/macroblocky while the S-VHS looks identical to the received signal.
Also you shouldn't assume analog==bad.
Remember that the Japanese have had HDTV since the 1980s, and their system was completely analog, but still looked better than the digital SD-DVDs we had. And a high-quality analog cassette recorder can run circles around the lossy digital MP3s that are popular today.
Yes. The advertisers are not interested in knowing if you watched their ads 3 weeks later. They are interested in knowing how many people saw the ads within 24 hours of airtime, since most ads are worthless after that 24 hours passed. (For example learning that JCPenney is having a Saturday Doorbuster sale when you see the ad on Sunday does them no good.)
Our Congressional representative don't read bills. Why should I? (ponder). Well here's an executive summary: "There's a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.
"Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.
"One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.
"Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop:"
The Secretary of Commerce-- shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access...
"In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to "all relevant data" without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review." CONTINUED HERE - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act
True. And also remember socialism or progressivism is an 'ism' for prison. You do what the government tells you to do, else they will throw you in prison. As scary as Microsoft might be, at last they can't throw me into prison. Or extract money from my paycheck (think about the $1500 fine assessed to Massachusetts citizens who don't have health insurance).
Government is more scary than private companies.
Why people trust an entity that can suck money from their wallet, or toss them behind bars, is a complete-and-total mystery. (Especially after the last eight years where citizens were tossed into Club Gitmo and tortured.)
Since these cable and internet monopolies were granted by the local towns/cities, then it should either be the towns/cities or the State legislatures that regulate the monopoly - just the same way the State regulates the electric company and natural gas company monopolies.
The Congress or its agencies need not be involved at all. In fact if a company is wholly-and-completely within a state (Mom&Pop Cablevision), then Congress has no authority to regulate them whatsoever. Intrastate commerce is the responsibility of the local state government.
>>>Without it, Comcast customers might click on the FCC link and see a page that says "The FCC has decided that network neutrality is currently being enforced just fine, and the FCC will not get involved." >>>
Actually in the case of Comcast it would be less obvious, such as tracking how much you download from hulu.com and charging ~50 cent per gigabyte..... but if you watch television on comcast.com, then there's no charge. Net neutrality is really about stopping companies from adopting anti-competitive practices. (Like how Microsoft gave away IE for free and forced the once-dominant $30 Netscape browser out.)
>>>acting like hooligans nonviolent or otherwise in order to obstruct the government helps no one, not even themselves.
(1) Nobody objected when the Anti-Bush and/or Anti-War protesters did it these last seven years. Nancy Pelosi even encouraged it at her townhalls, saying it was democracy in action.
(2) We have a right guaranteed by the constitution to express dismay if we think we're about to get screwed-up-the-ass by our government.
(3) There are only 8 million or about 2% of U.S. citizens who *want* health insurance but are not currently-covered by private or government plans. That's it. So why is it necessary the punish the other 98% with a government monopoly takeover of healthcare? Since the problem is minor, the solution should also be minor. Leave the current system alone, but merely extend Medicare to that small 2% of citizens who desire healthcare but are not covered. Problem solved. And the remaining 98% can keep their current setups - everybody will be happy.
>>>A few decades later and now it's about weighing each and every truck
They don't weigh every truck, since oftentimes the stations are closed, and most of those weigh stations are operated by the State Legislatures who are merely trying to protect their roads from damage. They have that right, as expressed by their own constitutions.
The job of the FCC is to act as mediator for the *airwaves* to prevent two people from broadcasting on the same channel. There purpose is to prevent EM chaos. They have NO authority over privately-owned wires. Congress never granted them that power.
The more I learn about Obama, the more I think he's worse than Clinton or Bush. Clinton was smarmy but not outright dishonest, and Bush was honest but incompetent. Obama on the other hand is making backroom deals with the Health industry, and then standing in front of us and saying, "I will not make backroom deals."
I suspect Obama and the former Illinois governor have a lot in common.
Yes but if you went to *business* school, or even just worked in a store sometime, you'd know that when a $2 item sells the business only gets about 50 cents of it, while the other $1.50 goes to rent/wages/et cetera. So the actual math is 0 + 0.50 (profit) - 2 (cost of purchase to review item) == negative $1.50
Well of course not. Why should Califonia be obligated tio enforce Utah law? For that matter why should France be obligated to enforce UK laws? This EU system is making less-and-less sense the more I learn about it.
>>>simple well-tailored Google search and a few measly days of sifting through the docs would have given you this answer without having to waste everyone else's time.
I'm glad you've been marked "troll" because you're flat wrong.
Time-and-time again laws have been declared unconstitutional and the prisoners freed (see my previous post filled with quotes). Just watch Henry Fonda's excellent movie "Gideon" for an example which is about a real man who stood-up against tyranny, and won.
>>>people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.
Jeez. More stupidity. People should not be forced to adhere to a law, or be punished by a law, that has been declared unconstitutional. "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, early 1800s.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)."
Apparently the European Union and/or UK Parliament doesn't understand these basic precepts. Since the law has been declared unconstitutional, all crimes or punishment under that law should be reverted back to the first day of enactment (1984), as if that law never existed.
>>>the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about >>>
Well that's stupid.
The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries. I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah, and I wonder if the EU may be exerting too much power.
Aside-
One cool example is when Delaware passed a law forbidding building new chemical plants without the DE Legislature's permission. Well just a few years later New Jersey built a new plant along the Delaware Bay. Delaware immediately sued NJ, and the NJ governor told delaware to fuck off, and so on. The U.S. Supreme Court dug-out 400 year old documents, reviewed the original charters, and proclaimed Delaware was correct - they own that beachfront. So New Jersey was forced to dismantle their construction and restore the waterline to its original appearance.
Teen pregnancy rates will probably drop, because now instead of living in Victorian-style ignorance ("Orgasm? What an orgasm?"), the teens will finally learn what "sex" is thanks to watching these no-longer restricted videos, and what not to do if you don't want to become a mommy or daddy.
>>>I've got some DVDs purchased over 10 years ago that still seem new
DVD-ROMs or DVD-Rs because they are not the same thing. The ROM uses pits pressed into the disc and theoretically will last forever as long as the pits remain undamaged, but the -R uses a purplish dye that fades with time.
Slashdot Mirror
In the first century BC a man named Spartacus also tried to "secede" and bring freedom to slaves. That didn't go so well either (the rebels were killed), but does that mean Spartacus and his followers were wrong?
A French citizen could be punished for selling a porn video to a 12-year-old British kid (by mail-order). He would be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned in France for violating the UK law.
The problem is that the UK law is now voided by the EU treaty, so that French person should be freed, because it's as if the law never existed.
1933's German and Italian National Socialists called, and they're mad that you didn't learn anything from them.
Hardly. The Roman Empire's strength came from the accumulated wealth it acquired when it defeated Carthage, Egypt, and Palestine. It's why the western half collapsed, but the eastern half survived until almost 1500 A.D.
None of these crucial regions are part of the modern EU which really traces its roots back to the Empire of Charlemagne (which extended from Spain to Poland), and the earlier barbarian tribes.
Thanks Mr. Realtor. Umm.... who do you recommend?
>>>If you're recording digital, there's no way that a raw stream capture will be worse.
That's the thing. Not all DVRs record the raw video. In fact most of them recompress the data to make it fit onto the hard drive. My Standard Definition DVR suffers from compression artifacts whereas a Super VHS recording does not. The DVR looks pixelated/macroblocky while the S-VHS looks identical to the received signal.
Also you shouldn't assume analog==bad.
Remember that the Japanese have had HDTV since the 1980s, and their system was completely analog, but still looked better than the digital SD-DVDs we had. And a high-quality analog cassette recorder can run circles around the lossy digital MP3s that are popular today.
>>>Same day viewing? Does that really matter?
Yes. The advertisers are not interested in knowing if you watched their ads 3 weeks later. They are interested in knowing how many people saw the ads within 24 hours of airtime, since most ads are worthless after that 24 hours passed. (For example learning that JCPenney is having a Saturday Doorbuster sale when you see the ad on Sunday does them no good.)
>>>Go read the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. Wow.
Our Congressional representative don't read bills. Why should I? (ponder). Well here's an executive summary: "There's a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.
"Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.
"One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.
"Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop:"
The Secretary of Commerce-- shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access...
"In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to "all relevant data" without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review." CONTINUED HERE - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act
>>>Remember, capitalism is an 'ism' for money.
True. And also remember socialism or progressivism is an 'ism' for prison. You do what the government tells you to do, else they will throw you in prison. As scary as Microsoft might be, at last they can't throw me into prison. Or extract money from my paycheck (think about the $1500 fine assessed to Massachusetts citizens who don't have health insurance).
Government is more scary than private companies.
Why people trust an entity that can suck money from their wallet, or toss them behind bars, is a complete-and-total mystery. (Especially after the last eight years where citizens were tossed into Club Gitmo and tortured.)
Since these cable and internet monopolies were granted by the local towns/cities, then it should either be the towns/cities or the State legislatures that regulate the monopoly - just the same way the State regulates the electric company and natural gas company monopolies.
The Congress or its agencies need not be involved at all. In fact if a company is wholly-and-completely within a state (Mom&Pop Cablevision), then Congress has no authority to regulate them whatsoever. Intrastate commerce is the responsibility of the local state government.
>>>Without it, Comcast customers might click on the FCC link and see a page that says "The FCC has decided that network neutrality is currently being enforced just fine, and the FCC will not get involved."
>>>
Actually in the case of Comcast it would be less obvious, such as tracking how much you download from hulu.com and charging ~50 cent per gigabyte..... but if you watch television on comcast.com, then there's no charge. Net neutrality is really about stopping companies from adopting anti-competitive practices. (Like how Microsoft gave away IE for free and forced the once-dominant $30 Netscape browser out.)
>>>acting like hooligans nonviolent or otherwise in order to obstruct the government helps no one, not even themselves.
(1) Nobody objected when the Anti-Bush and/or Anti-War protesters did it these last seven years. Nancy Pelosi even encouraged it at her townhalls, saying it was democracy in action.
(2) We have a right guaranteed by the constitution to express dismay if we think we're about to get screwed-up-the-ass by our government.
(3) There are only 8 million or about 2% of U.S. citizens who *want* health insurance but are not currently-covered by private or government plans. That's it. So why is it necessary the punish the other 98% with a government monopoly takeover of healthcare? Since the problem is minor, the solution should also be minor. Leave the current system alone, but merely extend Medicare to that small 2% of citizens who desire healthcare but are not covered. Problem solved. And the remaining 98% can keep their current setups - everybody will be happy.
>>>A few decades later and now it's about weighing each and every truck
They don't weigh every truck, since oftentimes the stations are closed, and most of those weigh stations are operated by the State Legislatures who are merely trying to protect their roads from damage. They have that right, as expressed by their own constitutions.
Excellent point.
The job of the FCC is to act as mediator for the *airwaves* to prevent two people from broadcasting on the same channel. There purpose is to prevent EM chaos. They have NO authority over privately-owned wires. Congress never granted them that power.
The business day is not complete without a little bit of theft, even if it's just a ream of printer paper
The more I learn about Obama, the more I think he's worse than Clinton or Bush. Clinton was smarmy but not outright dishonest, and Bush was honest but incompetent. Obama on the other hand is making backroom deals with the Health industry, and then standing in front of us and saying, "I will not make backroom deals."
I suspect Obama and the former Illinois governor have a lot in common.
>>>Where I went to school, 0 + 2 - 2 = 0
Yes but if you went to *business* school, or even just worked in a store sometime, you'd know that when a $2 item sells the business only gets about 50 cents of it, while the other $1.50 goes to rent/wages/et cetera. So the actual math is 0 + 0.50 (profit) - 2 (cost of purchase to review item) == negative $1.50
Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.
Well of course not. Why should Califonia be obligated tio enforce Utah law? For that matter why should France be obligated to enforce UK laws? This EU system is making less-and-less sense the more I learn about it.
>>>simple well-tailored Google search and a few measly days of sifting through the docs would have given you this answer without having to waste everyone else's time.
He said he's using Linux not Assix.
I'm glad you've been marked "troll" because you're flat wrong.
Time-and-time again laws have been declared unconstitutional and the prisoners freed (see my previous post filled with quotes). Just watch Henry Fonda's excellent movie "Gideon" for an example which is about a real man who stood-up against tyranny, and won.
>>>people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.
Jeez. More stupidity. People should not be forced to adhere to a law, or be punished by a law, that has been declared unconstitutional. "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, early 1800s.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)."
Apparently the European Union and/or UK Parliament doesn't understand these basic precepts.
Since the law has been declared unconstitutional, all crimes or punishment under that law
should be reverted back to the first day of enactment (1984), as if that law never existed.
>>>the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about
>>>
Well that's stupid.
The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries. I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah, and I wonder if the EU may be exerting too much power.
Aside-
One cool example is when Delaware passed a law forbidding building new chemical plants without the DE Legislature's permission. Well just a few years later New Jersey built a new plant along the Delaware Bay. Delaware immediately sued NJ, and the NJ governor told delaware to fuck off, and so on. The U.S. Supreme Court dug-out 400 year old documents, reviewed the original charters, and proclaimed Delaware was correct - they own that beachfront. So New Jersey was forced to dismantle their construction and restore the waterline to its original appearance.
Teen pregnancy rates will probably drop, because now instead of living in Victorian-style ignorance ("Orgasm? What an orgasm?"), the teens will finally learn what "sex" is thanks to watching these no-longer restricted videos, and what not to do if you don't want to become a mommy or daddy.
>>>I've got some DVDs purchased over 10 years ago that still seem new
DVD-ROMs or DVD-Rs because they are not the same thing. The ROM uses pits pressed into the disc and theoretically will last forever as long as the pits remain undamaged, but the -R uses a purplish dye that fades with time.