I'm not much of a believer in regulating ANY drugs. If people want to use these types of drugs to enhance their performance, that's their prerogative. The least risk is that in order to continue to advance at the pace they now find acceptable they will need to keep paying for the drug. There are obviously greater risks given that knowledge is not perfect and taking drugs on a regular basis tends to have side effects and interactions that don't come out in clinical trials.
This is a classic risk-reward scenario. People should be free to take their risks and their rewards.
At first I was shocked by parents talking about not pushing their kids to know difficult subject and thought it was a bad idea. I've changed my mind. PLEASE, let your kids off easy. I'll keep a fire under my kid and she can then smoke your kids for her entire adult life!!
Again, PLEASE go easy on your kids. They deserve better than to be forced to do ANYTHING they don't want to do. Oh, one more thing though.... Please vote for more cops and prisons.
They didn't bid! It was a No-Bid contract negotiated behind closed doors. The only other contractor involved was Bechtel and they weren't bidding. In fact, nobody to date has disclosed what their involvement in the process was. The Iraq war took our focus off Tora Bora where we had Al Queda and Bin Laden pinned down. Saddam was an asshole but that doesn't change the fact that we went into Iraq for all the wrong reasons and at exactly the wrong time.
Actually, Zen is counted as a religion and it doesn't posit the existence of God. It recommends a set of precepts and encourages it practitioners to look to the phenomena they are experiencing and beyond it to a state void of that experience. There's plenty of evidence that the practice of Zen meditation among experienced practitioners alters their brain waves in ways that could objectively indicate that they are experiencing the states Zen claims are available. Unless you choose to claim that Zen is not a religion, I don't see how you get around it as the case that invalidates your assertion.
I think the core of the strategy is HTML5. The web hasn't disappeared in smartphone/tablet app onslaught. FF makes it trivial for developers to adapt HTML5 apps to phones (if you even have to). It let's the owners of these phones and pads get straight at value on the web in a way where it's nicely integrated with the phone. This is a move to serve people who DON'T WANT TO BUY APPS not people who don't want to buy expensive hardware.
"The debate raging in India parallels a similar one that has simmered in the United States for decades."
The debate in the US hasn't been going on "for decades." It's been going on for about one decade give or take a few years. It matters that it hasn't been going on "for decades" because it's essentially a result of scavenging science budgets for warfare and debt service and of the decline of US commitment to science as the global warming debate has soured Republican lawmakers on science in general.
Ultimately cloud storage itself is a commodity. In fact, it's a commodity that loses a LOT of value if its a walled garden. Microsoft will have to compete on the value that sits on top of that storage. Just like Google and Apple have to compete on that plain. There are a bunch of aggregators coming on the scene that are proving this out. I work for one. It's called Otixo.com and it pulls together 21 different services including Skydrive, GoogleDrive, DropBox, etc and WebDAV and FTP into one big online harddrive and WebDAV share.
We are really careful not to step on the toes of these providers so we try to identify what their value is beyond storage and enhance it or at least stay out of the way. Ultimately, SkyDrive makes it easy to collaborate with the Office Suite and to eventually store XBox stuff. Microsoft's value prop is still Office, Sharepoint, MSSQL & it's Analysis Services,.NET and XBox. I think it's hard for them to break out of that even when there are contenders beating up on it daily. SkyDrive is a path to greater presence in the cloud which they sorely need but it's not a strategy in and of itself and it won't save them.
What Microsoft has needed for at least the last 10 years is to build bridges to Linux and Apple. They needed to make it as easy as possible for all boats to float. It's probably too late for that now....
I keep seeing "news & opinion" articles that either state the the Linux desktop is dead or presume it's dead and explain why. This meme has been around forever but it's gotten more popular lately. I think it's popularity is driven by developer adoption of Mac as a personal desktop.
I live in Boulder. This last month I saw linux on three different college kid's laptops. I talked to a friend at IBM who's whole department was switched to a linux desktop. I saw a linux desktop being used at the reception desk of a collaborative workspace and linux at two restaurants point of sale/service stands.
Maybe the linux desktop is dead to DEVELOPERS. I doubt it. It's clearly not dead here in my little sample set.
Hour zero pull 100% of your money out. Get family, camping gear, fresh water, fishing gear, walky talkies and books on surviving in the environment's you're heading into. Needless to say, no credit or debit cards. Ditch cell phones. Keep a laptop but never connect that one to internet again.
Get to the nearest extremely large lake, rent/lease the boat with cash. Fancy is bad. Stay on the water or in the wilderness. Slowly get to know the authorities around the lake. Tell them your story. Wait.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
You couldn't be more wrong. We live in a REPUBLIC. The rights of the individual are the source of all rights of the government. That is the essential starting point for LIMITED GOVERNMENT. One of the function of government is to manage the commons and offer services consistent with limited government to enrich and sustain said commons. This includes the common law, the common wealth and the common good. The pure Democracy that you are equating with freedom is no such thing. We call that the tyranny of the majority and our government was designed to strenuously avoid that situation.
When the government offers tax funded education as a feature of the commons, it has to honor the fundamental rights first. One of the rights we thought was important enough to list FIRST when we enumerated some of those rights was the right to never have government establish an official religion (and by extension, an official religious position). Creationism is a Christian idea. Other religions have creation myths too but they aren't pushing theirs. Incorporating these ideas into the commons that we pay for with tax money is a direct violation of expressed rights of US individuals.
One argument I've heard is that science is a belief system like religion and that teaching other belief systems is an appropriate practice under the auspices of science education. Science has a strong philosophical bias toward materialism and phenomenology that DEFINES science itself as we have practiced it for the last 200 years at least. It's not a belief system, it's a rigorous practice of examination, testing and reportage that has proved extremely valuable in filtering a giant array of conjectures into extremely productive hypotheses and theories. Treating it as just another belief system and mixing it with ideas from belief systems that lack the core features and biases of scientific thought is a violation of the definition of science. Doing so with my tax money is an act of fraud and abuse that would indicate an abuse of authority only possible in an authoritarian government.
One of the adages I feel has the greatest validity in technical business is, "The key to sustaining and advantage is to go where others can't." It's true that programming certain popular things doesn't require an understanding of much math. It's also true that math is critical tool for modeling phenomena in the real world. You have to ask yourself whether you want to be someone who CAN'T do that. Modeling phenomena in the real world isn't just for scientists. Its part of finance, operations, geography....
Why would anyone look at how much easier it can be to learn in today's world and chose to learn LESS fundamentals than their predecessors? How do you think we lost the engineering knowledge of the Romans and the medical knowledge of the Greeks for 1000 years? My bet is that someone looked that a trivial moment in their culture and said, "Why do we need to know that?"
The UN has a human rights commission packed with some of the worst offenders on earth. Its has a body of appointed representatives who act at a very great distance from the people they "serve." It's not surprising that India, Russia and China are backing this proposal. They are accustomed to providing less freedom, less representation and poor service to large swaths of people. Even the proposal to shift to "international" control of the Internet is a euphemism for shifting to socialist asian control of the Internet. The US isn't perfect by any means but I'd like to keep the Internet core here, thanks.
If the UN wants to control the Internet they can start by standup a big bunch of Internet services that are better than what we've got now.
They were still busy in the 70s and 80s. I went to Pomelo Drive for Grade school in the 70s and Chaminade in the 80s. I loved the deep thunder and the huge billowing clouds. I was too young for the Atlas tests. I can't imagine how dramatic those must have been.
As long as the sizes are standard you can buy double pane safety glass panels and frame them yourself. You can use the same insulators and insulation strategy when you hand build it as they use at a factory. A good craftsman can make a well insulated window that competes with the insulating performance of a prebuilt unit.
The trouble is, for any window that opens, it's a lot more work on a type of project that is already a lot of work. I've repaired double hung windows but that's as far as I'm willing to go because they're actually a complicated little machine. They have counter-balances and little sprung metal strips... The sliders have to be perfectly true and clear. Making a double hung window is a boatload of work that starts with a well-sorted table saw with excellent tolerances. Those cost a boatload of money. If you have the skills and the equipment, it might make sense. If you want a whole bunch of a very specific looking window, it might make sense. There are some very expensive windows.
The primary issue is whether you have enough knowledge and skill to realize a fair value for yourself.
The dude in who wrote the TFA is identifying a real issue but he's also kinda whining about a problem from which we're trending back away. DIY is on the rise. I'm not as worried about the loss of knowledge today as I was 5 years ago. I think we're seeing people with some time on their hands seeking to rebalance the scales of value realization with some elbow grease and know how. That's good!!
The article is clearly an attempt to twist history to favor a right wing agenda. I'm a conservative and I'm annoyed by it. It also serves the bizarre Rand version of conservative philosophy that finds no purpose for the commons. These petty squabbles put both liberals and conservatives further and further out on limbs. They make us all stupid. The founding fathers managed to reconcile an amazingly broad view of human freedom and property rights with the public provision of libraries, postal services, courts (yes, courts have been and can be private), police, harbor management, roads, scientific and geographic research.... There is a role for government in our lives and the only reason to deny that is in order to win a stupid argument. There is also the capacity for people to live entirely without government and not devolve into drooling animals - so government isn't the source of civil society. That doesn't mean that the best life is had in its total absence.
The problem with the article, no matter whether you agree with it or not, is the underlying premise. Here's what I think that premise is: "If the government provides you with benefits then they have plenary power to tax you at any rate the collective deems fair."
We Americans are on a slippery slope to a very bad place. We got here and are continuing down the slope because of the confluence of rising government power with a fact of political life - cronyism. You can't get rid of cronyism and still respect the rights of people holding office and those who know them. You can reduce the power of the government such that cronyism doesn't create crushing burdens on average people.
TFA wouldn't exist unless Obama had made that speech recently. The purpose of the speech was to advocate raising taxes. Yes, it was about raising taxes on "the rich" but ultimately it was still about raising taxes to fund a GIGANTIC government that never, ever shrinks no matter how badly it hurts the people it's supposed to serve. For some reason American tax payers are on the hook for enormous amounts of money. We aren't, for some reason, arguing about why we are letting ourselves collectively be on the hook for this much money. Instead we're arguing about which group of us should pay it.
The other part is that the cuts necessary to even hope to maintain a functioning government and a taxable economy together, are going to hurt someone. They could hurt farmers, oilmen, the poor, endangered species, the environment, people who buy healthcare, people who can't buy healthcare.... All kinds of people.
The bottom line is that you can't borrow, inflate or tax your way out of a corrupt government bent on knocking down the boundaries that keep it from being a tyrant. You can, if you work hard at it, reduce the size of the government to the point where the middle class can survive. You can also regulate big business in ways that avoid its failure destroying the country. Teddy Roosevelt had the right ideas about big business and progressivism. Woodrow Wilson and FDR, not so much....
Ultimately, we have the DOD and a bunch of universities (most of them public) to thank for the Internet. Xerox played a role.... The question is, HOW MUCH TAX is that worth? Are we supposed to pay an infinite license for the use of TCP/IP and its related services? The answer has to be no. If it's yes than the government can hand you a sandwich and take 100% of your income in payment. No matter what the government delivers, at some point there must be a limit to what it takes. In order to set that limit, we the people need to limit the scope of the government services. We paid for the Internet. Those dollars are spent.
Sorry dude, the counter to your assumption is all over South America. Those economies had and have tons of resources and rising population during periods of communist control and they stayed poor and 3rd world. So, NO, it wasn't the population and the resources that were unique about the US in the antebellum period.
One way of dealing with this would be to destroy the careers of people who advocate Internet censorship. We can elevate this to the level of social security by doing one simple thing.
Make sure than advocating Internet censorship results in losing the next election.
We don't even need a PAC. The people reading this have the skills the PACs usually buy at a high price. We can do SEO, SEM, YouTube content, autodialers, blog posts, comment spam, push email, analytics, list management.... Let's just swarm Texas District 12 with an open source PACish approach where we bring this guy down. The next shill that pops up, we do it again; and repeat until the shills get the picture. It needs to be more expensive to buy a politician than to play fair.
Whatever these documents are there had better be a process for clearing them as legitimate or not. If someone sees one of these documents under circumstances that they believe are legitimate they could attempt to act on them. Imagine someone in a design situation reading the voltage off of something that looks legit but isn't; or someone thinking some name picked out of the sky is a terrorist and finding someone with that name?
First, infrastructure is not speech. It can be easily demonstrated as well, that the purpose of Verizon's network is not to propagate THEIR OWN speech acts. they should be fee to throttle their own speech - hopefully to zero.
Secondly, Verizon is pretending that they OWN the spectrum they are using. No matter how the current government chooses to view that spectrum, it is not own-able by Verizon. It is part of the commons that is managed by the government through licensing to avoid chaos. Verizon is a licensee and it's license is subject to policies and restrictions on behalf of the owners of the actual spectrum - the people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not much of a believer in regulating ANY drugs. If people want to use these types of drugs to enhance their performance, that's their prerogative. The least risk is that in order to continue to advance at the pace they now find acceptable they will need to keep paying for the drug. There are obviously greater risks given that knowledge is not perfect and taking drugs on a regular basis tends to have side effects and interactions that don't come out in clinical trials.
This is a classic risk-reward scenario. People should be free to take their risks and their rewards.
At first I was shocked by parents talking about not pushing their kids to know difficult subject and thought it was a bad idea. I've changed my mind. PLEASE, let your kids off easy. I'll keep a fire under my kid and she can then smoke your kids for her entire adult life!!
Again, PLEASE go easy on your kids. They deserve better than to be forced to do ANYTHING they don't want to do. Oh, one more thing though.... Please vote for more cops and prisons.
They didn't bid! It was a No-Bid contract negotiated behind closed doors. The only other contractor involved was Bechtel and they weren't bidding. In fact, nobody to date has disclosed what their involvement in the process was. The Iraq war took our focus off Tora Bora where we had Al Queda and Bin Laden pinned down. Saddam was an asshole but that doesn't change the fact that we went into Iraq for all the wrong reasons and at exactly the wrong time.
Tried starting with Slackware in 1996(?) - poked around half lost
Bought a gray box with Redhat at Fries Electronics in 1997(?)
Used RedHat for server and desktop stuff
Used a short-lived Linux distro from the Wordperfect guys on laptop - worked pretty good
Used Fedora for desktop on desk and laptop
Used CentOs for server stuff - still do for all but AWS where I use Ubuntu
Used Ubuntu from first version on until the obvious reason why so many people now use Mint ;)
Also used FreeBSD to poke around ZFS.
Actually, Zen is counted as a religion and it doesn't posit the existence of God. It recommends a set of precepts and encourages it practitioners to look to the phenomena they are experiencing and beyond it to a state void of that experience. There's plenty of evidence that the practice of Zen meditation among experienced practitioners alters their brain waves in ways that could objectively indicate that they are experiencing the states Zen claims are available. Unless you choose to claim that Zen is not a religion, I don't see how you get around it as the case that invalidates your assertion.
I think the core of the strategy is HTML5. The web hasn't disappeared in smartphone/tablet app onslaught. FF makes it trivial for developers to adapt HTML5 apps to phones (if you even have to). It let's the owners of these phones and pads get straight at value on the web in a way where it's nicely integrated with the phone. This is a move to serve people who DON'T WANT TO BUY APPS not people who don't want to buy expensive hardware.
"The debate raging in India parallels a similar one that has simmered in the United States for decades."
The debate in the US hasn't been going on "for decades." It's been going on for about one decade give or take a few years. It matters that it hasn't been going on "for decades" because it's essentially a result of scavenging science budgets for warfare and debt service and of the decline of US commitment to science as the global warming debate has soured Republican lawmakers on science in general.
Ultimately cloud storage itself is a commodity. In fact, it's a commodity that loses a LOT of value if its a walled garden. Microsoft will have to compete on the value that sits on top of that storage. Just like Google and Apple have to compete on that plain. There are a bunch of aggregators coming on the scene that are proving this out. I work for one. It's called Otixo.com and it pulls together 21 different services including Skydrive, GoogleDrive, DropBox, etc and WebDAV and FTP into one big online harddrive and WebDAV share.
We are really careful not to step on the toes of these providers so we try to identify what their value is beyond storage and enhance it or at least stay out of the way. Ultimately, SkyDrive makes it easy to collaborate with the Office Suite and to eventually store XBox stuff. Microsoft's value prop is still Office, Sharepoint, MSSQL & it's Analysis Services, .NET and XBox. I think it's hard for them to break out of that even when there are contenders beating up on it daily. SkyDrive is a path to greater presence in the cloud which they sorely need but it's not a strategy in and of itself and it won't save them.
What Microsoft has needed for at least the last 10 years is to build bridges to Linux and Apple. They needed to make it as easy as possible for all boats to float. It's probably too late for that now....
Why does Harvard Business Review always get credit for discussions and idea that people beat to death on Compuserve in the mid 90s?
I keep seeing "news & opinion" articles that either state the the Linux desktop is dead or presume it's dead and explain why. This meme has been around forever but it's gotten more popular lately. I think it's popularity is driven by developer adoption of Mac as a personal desktop.
I live in Boulder. This last month I saw linux on three different college kid's laptops. I talked to a friend at IBM who's whole department was switched to a linux desktop. I saw a linux desktop being used at the reception desk of a collaborative workspace and linux at two restaurants point of sale/service stands.
Maybe the linux desktop is dead to DEVELOPERS. I doubt it. It's clearly not dead here in my little sample set.
Hour zero pull 100% of your money out. Get family, camping gear, fresh water, fishing gear, walky talkies and books on surviving in the environment's you're heading into. Needless to say, no credit or debit cards. Ditch cell phones. Keep a laptop but never connect that one to internet again.
Get to the nearest extremely large lake, rent/lease the boat with cash. Fancy is bad. Stay on the water or in the wilderness. Slowly get to know the authorities around the lake. Tell them your story. Wait.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
You couldn't be more wrong. We live in a REPUBLIC. The rights of the individual are the source of all rights of the government. That is the essential starting point for LIMITED GOVERNMENT. One of the function of government is to manage the commons and offer services consistent with limited government to enrich and sustain said commons. This includes the common law, the common wealth and the common good. The pure Democracy that you are equating with freedom is no such thing. We call that the tyranny of the majority and our government was designed to strenuously avoid that situation.
When the government offers tax funded education as a feature of the commons, it has to honor the fundamental rights first. One of the rights we thought was important enough to list FIRST when we enumerated some of those rights was the right to never have government establish an official religion (and by extension, an official religious position). Creationism is a Christian idea. Other religions have creation myths too but they aren't pushing theirs. Incorporating these ideas into the commons that we pay for with tax money is a direct violation of expressed rights of US individuals.
One argument I've heard is that science is a belief system like religion and that teaching other belief systems is an appropriate practice under the auspices of science education. Science has a strong philosophical bias toward materialism and phenomenology that DEFINES science itself as we have practiced it for the last 200 years at least. It's not a belief system, it's a rigorous practice of examination, testing and reportage that has proved extremely valuable in filtering a giant array of conjectures into extremely productive hypotheses and theories. Treating it as just another belief system and mixing it with ideas from belief systems that lack the core features and biases of scientific thought is a violation of the definition of science. Doing so with my tax money is an act of fraud and abuse that would indicate an abuse of authority only possible in an authoritarian government.
I hope that helped clarify a few things for you.
One of the adages I feel has the greatest validity in technical business is, "The key to sustaining and advantage is to go where others can't." It's true that programming certain popular things doesn't require an understanding of much math. It's also true that math is critical tool for modeling phenomena in the real world. You have to ask yourself whether you want to be someone who CAN'T do that. Modeling phenomena in the real world isn't just for scientists. Its part of finance, operations, geography....
Why would anyone look at how much easier it can be to learn in today's world and chose to learn LESS fundamentals than their predecessors? How do you think we lost the engineering knowledge of the Romans and the medical knowledge of the Greeks for 1000 years? My bet is that someone looked that a trivial moment in their culture and said, "Why do we need to know that?"
The UN has a human rights commission packed with some of the worst offenders on earth. Its has a body of appointed representatives who act at a very great distance from the people they "serve." It's not surprising that India, Russia and China are backing this proposal. They are accustomed to providing less freedom, less representation and poor service to large swaths of people. Even the proposal to shift to "international" control of the Internet is a euphemism for shifting to socialist asian control of the Internet. The US isn't perfect by any means but I'd like to keep the Internet core here, thanks.
If the UN wants to control the Internet they can start by standup a big bunch of Internet services that are better than what we've got now.
Yes, when you connect to other IPV6 enabled parties you're session is more secure and robust.
They were still busy in the 70s and 80s. I went to Pomelo Drive for Grade school in the 70s and Chaminade in the 80s. I loved the deep thunder and the huge billowing clouds. I was too young for the Atlas tests. I can't imagine how dramatic those must have been.
As long as the sizes are standard you can buy double pane safety glass panels and frame them yourself. You can use the same insulators and insulation strategy when you hand build it as they use at a factory. A good craftsman can make a well insulated window that competes with the insulating performance of a prebuilt unit.
The trouble is, for any window that opens, it's a lot more work on a type of project that is already a lot of work. I've repaired double hung windows but that's as far as I'm willing to go because they're actually a complicated little machine. They have counter-balances and little sprung metal strips... The sliders have to be perfectly true and clear. Making a double hung window is a boatload of work that starts with a well-sorted table saw with excellent tolerances. Those cost a boatload of money. If you have the skills and the equipment, it might make sense. If you want a whole bunch of a very specific looking window, it might make sense. There are some very expensive windows.
The primary issue is whether you have enough knowledge and skill to realize a fair value for yourself.
The dude in who wrote the TFA is identifying a real issue but he's also kinda whining about a problem from which we're trending back away. DIY is on the rise. I'm not as worried about the loss of knowledge today as I was 5 years ago. I think we're seeing people with some time on their hands seeking to rebalance the scales of value realization with some elbow grease and know how. That's good!!
The article is clearly an attempt to twist history to favor a right wing agenda. I'm a conservative and I'm annoyed by it. It also serves the bizarre Rand version of conservative philosophy that finds no purpose for the commons. These petty squabbles put both liberals and conservatives further and further out on limbs. They make us all stupid. The founding fathers managed to reconcile an amazingly broad view of human freedom and property rights with the public provision of libraries, postal services, courts (yes, courts have been and can be private), police, harbor management, roads, scientific and geographic research.... There is a role for government in our lives and the only reason to deny that is in order to win a stupid argument. There is also the capacity for people to live entirely without government and not devolve into drooling animals - so government isn't the source of civil society. That doesn't mean that the best life is had in its total absence.
The problem with the article, no matter whether you agree with it or not, is the underlying premise. Here's what I think that premise is: "If the government provides you with benefits then they have plenary power to tax you at any rate the collective deems fair."
We Americans are on a slippery slope to a very bad place. We got here and are continuing down the slope because of the confluence of rising government power with a fact of political life - cronyism. You can't get rid of cronyism and still respect the rights of people holding office and those who know them. You can reduce the power of the government such that cronyism doesn't create crushing burdens on average people.
TFA wouldn't exist unless Obama had made that speech recently. The purpose of the speech was to advocate raising taxes. Yes, it was about raising taxes on "the rich" but ultimately it was still about raising taxes to fund a GIGANTIC government that never, ever shrinks no matter how badly it hurts the people it's supposed to serve. For some reason American tax payers are on the hook for enormous amounts of money. We aren't, for some reason, arguing about why we are letting ourselves collectively be on the hook for this much money. Instead we're arguing about which group of us should pay it.
The other part is that the cuts necessary to even hope to maintain a functioning government and a taxable economy together, are going to hurt someone. They could hurt farmers, oilmen, the poor, endangered species, the environment, people who buy healthcare, people who can't buy healthcare.... All kinds of people.
The bottom line is that you can't borrow, inflate or tax your way out of a corrupt government bent on knocking down the boundaries that keep it from being a tyrant. You can, if you work hard at it, reduce the size of the government to the point where the middle class can survive. You can also regulate big business in ways that avoid its failure destroying the country. Teddy Roosevelt had the right ideas about big business and progressivism. Woodrow Wilson and FDR, not so much....
Ultimately, we have the DOD and a bunch of universities (most of them public) to thank for the Internet. Xerox played a role.... The question is, HOW MUCH TAX is that worth? Are we supposed to pay an infinite license for the use of TCP/IP and its related services? The answer has to be no. If it's yes than the government can hand you a sandwich and take 100% of your income in payment. No matter what the government delivers, at some point there must be a limit to what it takes. In order to set that limit, we the people need to limit the scope of the government services. We paid for the Internet. Those dollars are spent.
Sorry dude, the counter to your assumption is all over South America. Those economies had and have tons of resources and rising population during periods of communist control and they stayed poor and 3rd world. So, NO, it wasn't the population and the resources that were unique about the US in the antebellum period.
Hey, you ignored the warning about the bias goggles! You shouldn't have followed the link.
Austrian economics is a specific set of economic theories. It has nothing to do with the Bank of Austria in 1931.
It takes a culture, Steve. And yours aint it.
One way of dealing with this would be to destroy the careers of people who advocate Internet censorship. We can elevate this to the level of social security by doing one simple thing.
Make sure than advocating Internet censorship results in losing the next election.
Here's Lamar's district: Texas District 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_21st_congressional_district
We don't even need a PAC. The people reading this have the skills the PACs usually buy at a high price. We can do SEO, SEM, YouTube content, autodialers, blog posts, comment spam, push email, analytics, list management.... Let's just swarm Texas District 12 with an open source PACish approach where we bring this guy down. The next shill that pops up, we do it again; and repeat until the shills get the picture. It needs to be more expensive to buy a politician than to play fair.
Whatever these documents are there had better be a process for clearing them as legitimate or not. If someone sees one of these documents under circumstances that they believe are legitimate they could attempt to act on them. Imagine someone in a design situation reading the voltage off of something that looks legit but isn't; or someone thinking some name picked out of the sky is a terrorist and finding someone with that name?
First, infrastructure is not speech. It can be easily demonstrated as well, that the purpose of Verizon's network is not to propagate THEIR OWN speech acts. they should be fee to throttle their own speech - hopefully to zero.
Secondly, Verizon is pretending that they OWN the spectrum they are using. No matter how the current government chooses to view that spectrum, it is not own-able by Verizon. It is part of the commons that is managed by the government through licensing to avoid chaos. Verizon is a licensee and it's license is subject to policies and restrictions on behalf of the owners of the actual spectrum - the people.