>>> The fact that they filter out the 'bad' for paying customers is egregious
What on earth are you talking about? Google's not damaging customers. They are demoting bad businesses like "DecorMyEyes" that sold counterfeit glasses, and therefore stole $450 from a customer. The really sad part of the story is that the customer disputed the charge, but the store owner called Citi Bank, pretended to be the customer, and said to close the dispute. Citi complied and then refused to reopen it. This fraud was one scam on top of another scam on top of another scam.
And he used to be google-ranked #1. But not anymore. Good for google.
Yep and it's Our job to spread that information. Complain and moan about lousy businesses via word-of-mouth. I know I've stopped using Google since I learned they've been censoring Google News results of sites they don't like (such as foxnews) and yanking videos they find offensive from youtube (such as the Obama Deception). I'm now categorizing google as almost as bad as Microsoft and switching to Yahoo search as my default.
I was talking about expanding roads OUTSIDE of the city, so that people (and freight trucks) can take these alternate routes (i.e. drive around the city) instead of being forced to go through it.
There should be plenty of room in the surrounding suburb or rural areas to build new high-speed, limited-access roads.
My beliefs can be summarized by reading Jefferson's writings. I agree with 99.9% of what he said. He was our second-smartest president and understood the need for diplomatic relations with other countries but he ALSO understood that a Representative Republic can not work if the laws are secret, or too confusing to read and understand. These treaties should NOT be negotiated in secret, or passed in the Senate during a midnight session behind closed doors.
Also I'm tired of the "Apology is Policy" paradigm that has become a part of our modern culture. Just like the US Government: Enslaved several million Japanese Americans for half-a-decade, experimented on Blacks with diseases, used soldiers to test the affects of nukes, and so on.
Then the US says "I'm sorry" as if that makes it all okay. No. It doesn't.
>>>Makes sense, so long as you're A-OK with the US: Having no exports/imports
Strawman argument.
I'm not an isolationist and would happily trade overseas. I don't know why so many of ye think in black-and-white. A desire to have an OPEN SOURCE government where everything is visible (except during declared wars) does not mean I am anti-free trade or anti-negotiation. Stop thinking like a little kid where everything is "all" or "nothing".
>>>you're supporting a world where apparently the US doesn't trade with anyone,
Strawman argument. I'm not an isolationist and would happily trade with my European and Chinese and Indian neighbors. What I am is: Anti-world policeman and anti-secrecy (unless we're having a declared war). The People need to know what laws are being passed/treaties signed internationally, because those laws/regulations affect their lives.
BTW it appears you would make a great Serf in a revived Dark ages: "Yes master. You know better than I do. I'll just remain ignorant."
>>>this idiot pleaded guilty, so you can't really blame anyone but him.
The Supreme Court has ruled that your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is still a protected right, if it can be demonstrated that the person was never informed of that right. They also stated that oftentimes completely-innocent people will plead guilty to a crime they never committed, so that alone is not enough evidence to convict.
Bottom Line:
Keep your mouth shut. I've had people tell me, "Oh well if you were innocent why wouldn't you cooperate with the police and let them see inside your trunk, or home?" Answer: Because innocent people have been sent to prison. Better to not volunteer anything.
When the Supreme Court (either Union or State level) declares a law unconstitutional, that also implies the law never existed. It was on paper but had zero force of law from Day 0.
But the LOC isn't saying the DMCA is unconstitutional, so the law still remains in full force from the time of its creation to the Day when the LOC said it's okay to jailbreak. Anybody caught during that ~5 year span of time shall still be punishable.
BTW:
I don't believe the SCOTUS has the right to nullify laws. Certainly there's not a word in the Constitution that gives them power to negate what the Legislature duly-passed and the Executive signed. They can decide CASES but never were they given power to unmake laws.
Nullification is a reserved power of the Member States.
>>>except if you build more roads...you get more congestion.
Bullshit. Drive to the US midwest and you'll see a LOT of roads that were widened from 2 to 4 lanes wide as part of the Eisenhower Interstate upgrade..... and yet these roads are mostly empty stretches with little traffic. Therefore your conclusion that wider roads == more cars/congestion has been proven false.
>>>They're not supposed to decide if the law is "fair" or not. That's what legislatures and supreme courts do.
- Juries are the People. - the People are the ultimate authority from which all authority derives.
They have every right, via the jury, to declare the laws passed by their servants to be "unfair" and release their neighbor from trial. That is one of the original reasons jury trials were invented - to nullify the power of the State/King/Legislature.
- Note that jury nullification only affects that ONE case. The law still remains in effect afterwards.
Perhaps not, but if they released confidential documents about the EU, Russia Federation, or Chinese National Socialist Government, I'd certainly read it.
>>>Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.
You presume wrong.
I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory. What I want is a government that is weak w/ most of the power belonging to the people ("every man a king of his own domain"). Secrecy of things like COICA (copyright/three-strike law) and ACTA (more copyright protection but on the global scale) that affect citizens is bullshit. It should be out in the open, not hidden, otherwise representative government Can Not work.
What you are supporting is basically a return to the European Dark Ages, where the leaders operated in the dark without the people's knowledge, and the citizens were just pawns in their leader's games.
What the hell are you talking about? Jefferson's father was, in modern dollars, half a million in debt and Thomas inherited all of that debt. He never owned anything - it was all owned by the Bankers in the same fashion the bankers own your house (mortgaged) or car (they hold title).
Washington freed 90% of his slaves while still alive, and only kept a few housekeepers who were paid for their services, but they free to leave whenever they desired (but they chose to stay).
Massachusetts made slavery illegal in 1777, shortly after they declared themselves an independent state. John Adams didn't own slaves because it was illegal to do so.
>>>I'm a socialist (by American standards). I fully support the freedom of citizens to own assault rifles, as well as the freedom to make any decisions about their body (which includes abortions).
But not completely. If I fail to insure my body, you support the bill's ~$1000 fine It's my body - they have zero right to punish me for what I do or do not do with my own body.
I know I'll probably get shot-down but there's a very, very simple solution:
Just as the internet companies have had to lay fatter "pipes" as consumer speeds have grown from 14k to 56k to 10,000k so too do the highway companies have to lay fatter roads to handle the growing population. Internet & roads need to be designed for the PEAK demand to handle all the "packets" full of data or people. But right now they are nowhere near that level - hence traffic jams and congestion.
"If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't object to us searching you car, or home, or spying on your internet."
You've been telling us that for years Mr. Senator. Are you now saying you no longer believe that? Hmmm. First you spied on us, and performed unconstitutional/illegal searches... and now WE are spying on you. The wheel turns does it not Mr. Politician?
>>>how does an inch-long mass of flesh with no brain have rights?
A human fetus is not an inch long at 8 months old. It's practically the same size as a newborn baby (between 1-to-10 pounds). Why is it okay to say a baby has a Right to Life at 9.1 months (i.e. after birth), but the human fetus at 9 months (just prior to birth) does not? Is there any real distinction?
And what about premies, who are born premature at 6 months? They have more Right to Life than a 9 month old fetus? Really? I don't agree. If the premie has a right to life at 6 months after conception, so too does the fetus at 7, 8, or 9 months.
Because local governments created them. And I agree those "exclusive franchises" should be revoked to allow a free market, but it's never going to happen. The local politicians have been bought by Comcast to protect the arrangement - plus many people still insist it's a natural monopoly and there's no other choice.
Hence the need for either State or Union level regulation of the monopoly(ies).
I'd rather charge the bills to the rich (Microsoft, Ford, GE) then the poor. I'd sooner see the unpaid, uninsured ER bills come-out of the pockets of Aetna & other HMOs than levy a ~$1000 fine on poor people. The old way was better than this new "reformed" way.
>>>okay, then when a fetus (not a baby yet, go back to health class) files a restraining order against the mother it is entitled to protection.
Babies and toddlers can't file restraining orders. Does that mean mom can trample their Right to Life and kill them? No. Neither does it mean mom should be able to trample the fetuses' right to life.
I predict some future generation will probably view the Abortion the same way we view Slavery. We say, "How could the 1700s-1800s people be so dumb as to say blacks don't have rights, and are property not people?" Someday they'll say the same about our generation & human fetuses' rights.
>>>Then you'll most likely declare bankrupcy when you get the >$10,000 bill, effectively sticking *me* and everyone else with insurance with your bill.
You serious? You can't afford a $10,000+ ER bill, but you can afford that $25-30,000 car you own. (Twice - one for you and one for wife.) Really? I don't think any of us on this website are that poor we can't pay our own bills.
Also unpaid hospital bills don't get charged to taxpayers - it gets charged to the megacorp or HMO that owns the ER. So it's basically a burden on the rich, which is how it should be, rather than on the workers who are probably poor (else they'd have insurance).
Basically the Old way was better because the new way screws the poor and helps the Megacorps.
Comcast has been caught blocking websites multiple times and/or slowing-down traffic they don't like (netflix video and bittorrents).
So yeah it's been a problem and we need government to regulate the Internet monopoly just the same as they regulate the Electric, Phone, Water, Natural gas monopolies. Now maybe if it can be argued "no monopoly exists" there'd be no need for regulation (such as the cellphone market) but that's simply not the case. You either have a monopoly (comcast) or duopoly (comcast/verizon) and collusion.
Not correct again. Lots of slashdotters have said they have DSL, which of course means they have the phone wire running into their hope. Others have gone on record that they don't use a landline, but keep it for emergency (i.e. when the power goes out and/or cellular gets overloaded).
As for government regulation: They do it with other monopolies like electricity, phone, natural gas, water, sewer, and we've not been screwed. There's no reason to think they'd suddenly be incompetent when they regulate the internet utility.
>>>>>It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it >> >>That only works if you also sign out of any emergency services, and chose never to be treated in an emergency room.
Or: I could just pay the ER bill. (duh) I don't need to have insurance and Congress has zero authority to force me to buy it (they do not regulate intrastate commerce).
Slashdot Mirror
>>> The fact that they filter out the 'bad' for paying customers is egregious
What on earth are you talking about? Google's not damaging customers. They are demoting bad businesses like "DecorMyEyes" that sold counterfeit glasses, and therefore stole $450 from a customer. The really sad part of the story is that the customer disputed the charge, but the store owner called Citi Bank, pretended to be the customer, and said to close the dispute. Citi complied and then refused to reopen it. This fraud was one scam on top of another scam on top of another scam.
And he used to be google-ranked #1.
But not anymore.
Good for google.
>>>Markets can only work with information
Yep and it's Our job to spread that information. Complain and moan about lousy businesses via word-of-mouth. I know I've stopped using Google since I learned they've been censoring Google News results of sites they don't like (such as foxnews) and yanking videos they find offensive from youtube (such as the Obama Deception). I'm now categorizing google as almost as bad as Microsoft and switching to Yahoo search as my default.
>>>Search Yahoo Images for Ubuntu Unity.
Fixed that for you. :-) And thanks for the links/images
I was talking about expanding roads OUTSIDE of the city, so that people (and freight trucks) can take these alternate routes (i.e. drive around the city) instead of being forced to go through it.
There should be plenty of room in the surrounding suburb or rural areas to build new high-speed, limited-access roads.
Yeah. Accepted.
My beliefs can be summarized by reading Jefferson's writings. I agree with 99.9% of what he said. He was our second-smartest president and understood the need for diplomatic relations with other countries but he ALSO understood that a Representative Republic can not work if the laws are secret, or too confusing to read and understand. These treaties should NOT be negotiated in secret, or passed in the Senate during a midnight session behind closed doors.
Also I'm tired of the "Apology is Policy" paradigm that has become a part of our modern culture. Just like the US Government: Enslaved several million Japanese Americans for half-a-decade, experimented on Blacks with diseases, used soldiers to test the affects of nukes, and so on.
Then the US says "I'm sorry" as if that makes it all okay. No. It doesn't.
>>>Makes sense, so long as you're A-OK with the US: Having no exports/imports
Strawman argument.
I'm not an isolationist and would happily trade overseas. I don't know why so many of ye think in black-and-white. A desire to have an OPEN SOURCE government where everything is visible (except during declared wars) does not mean I am anti-free trade or anti-negotiation. Stop thinking like a little kid where everything is "all" or "nothing".
>>>you're supporting a world where apparently the US doesn't trade with anyone,
Strawman argument. I'm not an isolationist and would happily trade with my European and Chinese and Indian neighbors. What I am is: Anti-world policeman and anti-secrecy (unless we're having a declared war). The People need to know what laws are being passed/treaties signed internationally, because those laws/regulations affect their lives.
BTW it appears you would make a great Serf in a revived Dark ages:
"Yes master. You know better than I do. I'll just remain ignorant."
>>>this idiot pleaded guilty, so you can't really blame anyone but him.
The Supreme Court has ruled that your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is still a protected right, if it can be demonstrated that the person was never informed of that right. They also stated that oftentimes completely-innocent people will plead guilty to a crime they never committed, so that alone is not enough evidence to convict.
Bottom Line:
Keep your mouth shut. I've had people tell me, "Oh well if you were innocent why wouldn't you cooperate with the police and let them see inside your trunk, or home?" Answer: Because innocent people have been sent to prison. Better to not volunteer anything.
When the Supreme Court (either Union or State level) declares a law unconstitutional, that also implies the law never existed. It was on paper but had zero force of law from Day 0.
But the LOC isn't saying the DMCA is unconstitutional, so the law still remains in full force from the time of its creation to the Day when the LOC said it's okay to jailbreak. Anybody caught during that ~5 year span of time shall still be punishable.
BTW:
I don't believe the SCOTUS has the right to nullify laws. Certainly there's not a word in the Constitution that gives them power to negate what the Legislature duly-passed and the Executive signed. They can decide CASES but never were they given power to unmake laws.
Nullification is a reserved power of the Member States.
>>>except if you build more roads...you get more congestion.
Bullshit. Drive to the US midwest and you'll see a LOT of roads that were widened from 2 to 4 lanes wide as part of the Eisenhower Interstate upgrade..... and yet these roads are mostly empty stretches with little traffic. Therefore your conclusion that wider roads == more cars/congestion has been proven false.
>>>They're not supposed to decide if the law is "fair" or not. That's what legislatures and supreme courts do.
- Juries are the People.
- the People are the ultimate authority from which all authority derives.
They have every right, via the jury, to declare the laws passed by their servants to be "unfair" and release their neighbor from trial. That is one of the original reasons jury trials were invented - to nullify the power of the State/King/Legislature.
- Note that jury nullification only affects that ONE case. The law still remains in effect afterwards.
Perhaps not, but if they released confidential documents about the EU, Russia Federation, or Chinese National Socialist Government, I'd certainly read it.
Unfortunately wikileaks hasn't been doing that.
>>>Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.
You presume wrong.
I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory. What I want is a government that is weak w/ most of the power belonging to the people ("every man a king of his own domain"). Secrecy of things like COICA (copyright/three-strike law) and ACTA (more copyright protection but on the global scale) that affect citizens is bullshit. It should be out in the open, not hidden, otherwise representative government Can Not work.
What you are supporting is basically a return to the European Dark Ages, where the leaders operated in the dark without the people's knowledge, and the citizens were just pawns in their leader's games.
What the hell are you talking about? Jefferson's father was, in modern dollars, half a million in debt and Thomas inherited all of that debt. He never owned anything - it was all owned by the Bankers in the same fashion the bankers own your house (mortgaged) or car (they hold title).
Washington freed 90% of his slaves while still alive, and only kept a few housekeepers who were paid for their services, but they free to leave whenever they desired (but they chose to stay).
Massachusetts made slavery illegal in 1777, shortly after they declared themselves an independent state.
John Adams didn't own slaves because it was illegal to do so.
>>>I'm a socialist (by American standards). I fully support the freedom of citizens to own assault rifles, as well as the freedom to make any decisions about their body (which includes abortions).
But not completely.
If I fail to insure my body, you support the bill's ~$1000 fine
It's my body - they have zero right to punish me for what I do or do not do with my own body.
I know I'll probably get shot-down but there's a very, very simple solution:
Just as the internet companies have had to lay fatter "pipes" as consumer speeds have grown from 14k to 56k to 10,000k so too do the highway companies have to lay fatter roads to handle the growing population. Internet & roads need to be designed for the PEAK demand to handle all the "packets" full of data or people. But right now they are nowhere near that level - hence traffic jams and congestion.
"If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't object to us searching you car, or home, or spying on your internet."
You've been telling us that for years Mr. Senator. Are you now saying you no longer believe that? Hmmm. First you spied on us, and performed unconstitutional/illegal searches ... and now WE are spying on you. The wheel turns does it not Mr. Politician?
Fucking asshole.
>>>how does an inch-long mass of flesh with no brain have rights?
A human fetus is not an inch long at 8 months old. It's practically the same size as a newborn baby (between 1-to-10 pounds). Why is it okay to say a baby has a Right to Life at 9.1 months (i.e. after birth), but the human fetus at 9 months (just prior to birth) does not? Is there any real distinction?
And what about premies, who are born premature at 6 months? They have more Right to Life than a 9 month old fetus? Really? I don't agree. If the premie has a right to life at 6 months after conception, so too does the fetus at 7, 8, or 9 months.
>>>Why is it those monopolies exist?
Because local governments created them. And I agree those "exclusive franchises" should be revoked to allow a free market, but it's never going to happen. The local politicians have been bought by Comcast to protect the arrangement - plus many people still insist it's a natural monopoly and there's no other choice.
Hence the need for either State or Union level regulation of the monopoly(ies).
Well I disagree.
I'd rather charge the bills to the rich (Microsoft, Ford, GE) then the poor. I'd sooner see the unpaid, uninsured ER bills come-out of the pockets of Aetna & other HMOs than levy a ~$1000 fine on poor people. The old way was better than this new "reformed" way.
>>>okay, then when a fetus (not a baby yet, go back to health class) files a restraining order against the mother it is entitled to protection.
Babies and toddlers can't file restraining orders.
Does that mean mom can trample their Right to Life and kill them?
No. Neither does it mean mom should be able to trample the fetuses' right to life.
I predict some future generation will probably view the Abortion the same way we view Slavery. We say, "How could the 1700s-1800s people be so dumb as to say blacks don't have rights, and are property not people?" Someday they'll say the same about our generation & human fetuses' rights.
>>>Then you'll most likely declare bankrupcy when you get the >$10,000 bill, effectively sticking *me* and everyone else with insurance with your bill.
You serious? You can't afford a $10,000+ ER bill, but you can afford that $25-30,000 car you own. (Twice - one for you and one for wife.) Really? I don't think any of us on this website are that poor we can't pay our own bills.
Also unpaid hospital bills don't get charged to taxpayers - it gets charged to the megacorp or HMO that owns the ER. So it's basically a burden on the rich, which is how it should be, rather than on the workers who are probably poor (else they'd have insurance).
Basically the Old way was better because the
new way screws the poor and helps the Megacorps.
Comcast has been caught blocking websites multiple times and/or slowing-down traffic they don't like (netflix video and bittorrents).
So yeah it's been a problem and we need government to regulate the Internet monopoly just the same as they regulate the Electric, Phone, Water, Natural gas monopolies. Now maybe if it can be argued "no monopoly exists" there'd be no need for regulation (such as the cellphone market) but that's simply not the case. You either have a monopoly (comcast) or duopoly (comcast/verizon) and collusion.
>>>you must be the only /.er with a landline.
Not correct again. Lots of slashdotters have said they have DSL, which of course means they have the phone wire running into their hope. Others have gone on record that they don't use a landline, but keep it for emergency (i.e. when the power goes out and/or cellular gets overloaded).
As for government regulation: They do it with other monopolies like electricity, phone, natural gas, water, sewer, and we've not been screwed. There's no reason to think they'd suddenly be incompetent when they regulate the internet utility.
>>>>>It's MY body and I have a right to decide whether or not I wish to insure it
>>
>>That only works if you also sign out of any emergency services, and chose never to be treated in an emergency room.
Or: I could just pay the ER bill.
(duh)
I don't need to have insurance and Congress has zero authority to force me to buy it (they do not regulate intrastate commerce).