It seems to me too many people give too much power to a simple word. Essentially that's what we're doing here right? Gameplay remains unchanged, we're just changing the name of the other team. So is it because we fear the Taliban? Should we start calling them "The opposing force that must not be named"?
All of those other things you speak of can be monetized in some way by various corporations and governments. I don't think any of them have really found a good way of making money off of file sharing since their ridiculously large "winnings" in court are more than many people see in their entire lifetimes and therefore probably never get paid.
It would appear that they have distanced themselves from Scientology in accordance with their board and investors in 2007. That makes me feel a bit better about using it but I'm still going to do some more reading on the subject.
I've been trying this out on my home computers so far and its definitely less resource intensive than previous AV solutions I've used. I haven't gotten infected with anything lately (that I know of) so I don't know how well it handles infections yet.
Actual web page is here and you can read up on it a bit here.
My test on Firefox actually stuttered a bit but that could be resource load on my computer. Of course, Firefox's 92/100 is still a fail according to Acid3.
When you consider IE8's score I'd say that they're making good progress.
I'd be interested in seeing if it could run Windows 7 as well. I could probably make due with OSX if it ran the full Office 2007 suite (including OneNote).
I've been keeping my eye on tablet technology lately to see if it could be a viable solution for a higher ed classroom or mobile lab. From what I've seen of OneNote, it could be huge for students if it were running on a really nice multi-touch device.. preferably one with an optional stilus. I've looked at the Dell tablets, and while they're nice, they're more of a laptop with a touchscreen (granted, the screen can lay down to cover the keyboard and make a full tablet) and are pretty expensive.
Even if the iPad would be horrible for this scenario, I'm hoping it may encourage some more advances in the tablet market.
Right, because, you know, there aren't any resources up there or low gravity that could make it an interesting launch site for larger/long term space exploration vehicles.
Of course I've heard people talk about getting the same possibilities out of asteroid mining so maybe we'll head that route instead?
Or get a good Bluetooth headset and a cell phone with voice control.
My old AT&T tilt worked wonders for this when combined with a good headset (using a Plantronics Voyager 510). Voice dialing could be initiated by taking one hand off the wheel for just a few seconds and I never had to take my eyes off the road.. same thing for hanging up. Answering the phone was even easier.
Unfortunately, my iPhone 3G is a step backwards in some ways, including the lack of voice dialing without needing to pull out the phone.
Of course, this does not help the people who lose focus while talking on a cell phone. I'm not sure how this is any different than talking to someone in the car but I've definitely seen people who have this problem.
The rich people used their resources and talents to acquire wealth whereas the poor did nothing to deserve the free money.
I'm a bit confused... how are an author's children, grand-children, and great grand-children any more deserving of this "free money"? They didn't write the book or use their talents to acquire this wealth, one of their ancestor's did.
I do agree an author needs to get paid, otherwise what is to encourage them to write more beyond their personal enjoyment of doing so? However, current copyright is extreme and, if big business has their way, will eventually be extended to infinity and the public domain will die. It is VERY possible to lose great works of culture if a company decides they want to spike the price of a certain work by stopping it's production for x amount of years.
I still think a set duration is best. Anywhere from 12 to 20 years sounds reasonable to me and gives the creator plenty of time to not only earn money from their work but also start on their next project. If they die during the copyright of a work then it should pass on to their estate but it should still expire at the end of it's allotted time.
This product is a reason why I love capitalism. New and cool stuff all the time. I hope they don't do anything anti-market to this product, like patenting it.
Yes, until they take the crud they absorbed and bury it underground right on top of the water table, because that ends up being the cheapest way to dispose of it for one reason or another.
Now that I think of it, that would also in turn increase demand for their product.. its like having their cake and eating it over and over and over!
Joking aside, it does seem interesting if it actually pans out to be a real product.
The armed forces protect everyone, jointly. Healthcare would apply to everyone, severally.
Big difference.
I get your point but I'm not really sure on that. Are the armed forces currently really protecting me in the Middle East right now? I know the politicians and the media say they are, and really I can't know if, had they not gone, if another 9/11 would have happened. There is also the humanitarian aspects to consider which don't really effect/protect me directly. Still though, sometimes I can't help but think the armed forces aren't protecting government/corporate interests more than mine. Not on an individual basis, mind you.. many join precisely to protect the freedoms of everyone... but on an organizational level.
Perhaps your ilk should move to a country where your socialist designs are already in effect, instead of trying to change our carefully designed governmental system outside the bounds of its authority.
I can't help but think I live in a different U.S. than you do.
There is nothing in this article that states that these things must be implimented everywhere.
They never said "here are five steps for operators of virtual worlds built for and targetting kids to take in order to...". Instead they said:
The Commission recommended five steps for virtual world operators to take in order to limit the exposure of kids to explicit content
The above quote leads me to believe this is their recommendation for all virtual world operators. My belief is further backed up by their researching many virtual world types, many of which, I'm fairly certain, are not targeted towards children.
I am a parent. And $#!@$ you for suggesting that it is lazy of me to expect Build-A-Bear to effectively prevent pedophiles from harassing my daughter on line
I specifically said "a good chunk" and not "all" because I realize not every parent is like this. Indeed, the ones that are may be in the minority, albeit a vocal one that is out there lobbying. There are also often other factors including the need for both parents to work so much these days just to make ends meet (which is a separate issue).
I was not trying to imply that you specifically or anyone else here necessarily fell into this group of parents I'm referring too.
Parents should be the one who ultimately decide whether their kids are ready to join online worlds and, if they're not, prevent them from doing so.
We as a people should not need a government organization dictating what our children should or should not be exposed too. I realize it's politically incorrect to blame voting parents for anything these days but there is no government rules that will replace a good parenting. Furthermore, I'm starting to realize a good chunk of those pushing for things like this are parents who really don't want to put in the work to raise their children and instead would prefer the government or schools do it for them.
Valid point and it's a tricky argument. Obviously it is nice to be able to take care of your family in the event of a tragic situation occurring.
How about the estate gets the copyright for the duration of the original copyright? Lets use the 14 year copyright the GP mentioned.. if the artist dies ant there are still 9 years left on the copyright then the estate could retain the copyright for 9 years. If there is only 5 months left then the estate only gets the remaining 5 months.
This way, the copyright is honored to it's entirety and the estate benefits, assuming the copyright hasn't expired already. True, it would suck if the copyright only had a month left on it and the holder died and didn't leave much for his/her estate but that could be chalked up to bad planning (for emergencies) as the copyright has already payed out as much as it was ever going to.
Much of anything more, I'm afraid, could be easily abused (as it has been already). We could use the argument that there should be an extension so the family can continue being supported... but then what if a corporation gets the copyright.. just think of all the people working at the corporation and their families....
Copyright should not be a retirement plan.. not for the artist and not for their estates or corporations.
I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news
That is his first problem right there. They don't gather news, they gather entertainment and they present that entertainment with whatever spin they feel will best cause the effect they're looking for whether that be sympathy, outrage, shock, etc.
Don't get me wrong either, I'm not saying CNN is the only one like this and this isn't a political viewpoint where I'm categorizing news media into good, bad, left, or right. I'm saying all "news" programs are like this and have been this way for a while.
As for the public interaction via Twitter I don't see how that is a bad thing. In fact I think its a great way for them to keep in contact with their audience, live, and get the pulse of the public. I think it's great that someone at CNN is at least making an attempt at keeping up with some current technology trends and have found a way to use it as a possibly useful communication tool.
It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.
I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.
-They want to be able to charge $0.20 for each text message.
I really wish the people who complain about this would at least provide the proper perspective. The $0.20 per text cost is the cost without a plan. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile (AT&T as well?) all offer unlimited plans nowadays. Nobody with a clue is actually paying $0.20 per SMS.
I had a plan set up for several thousand text messages but was still getting charged for some of them. I think the ones I was getting charged for may have been international (which you have a to get a separate international plan to cover those apparently) but still. I'm pretty sure if I had an unlimited plan I'd still have the same issue.. its unlimited with certain limitations.
-They want to be able to force you to purchase a data plan with certain WiFi phones.
A friend mentioned to me the other day that he's read somewhere that AT&T is planning on forcing data plans on any account that has a SmartPhone/PDA. According to him, if you don't call them and put the data plan on there willingly, supposedly they're just going to add it on themselves.
A quick search on Google seems to back this information up although, according to these sources, it should have started in September:
True, I'd say a lot of people that have smartphones probably use data, but I know people who have phones on their account that aren't even in use and are simply there to hold their phone number (they have it forwarded to another phone for instance) and don't use the data. They could probably try to switch the phones over to a simpler one for this functionality, but if they're stuck in the middle of a two year contract that can be problematic as well.
I think expanding network neutrality arguments to cell networks is a little over-reaching.
Which is exactly what AT&T and the other wireless providers want you to think. Hell, even the ISPs want you to think that for your cable/DSL.
Admittedly, I don't know the specifics completely nor do I know for sure if it extended to cellular providers, but sometime during the 90s the ISPs were provided money in some form or fashion to build up their infrastructure to support the growing userbase. They took the money but didn't use it the way they were supposed to. I'd be willing to bet most of these companies have the money now but they won't use it to do the upgrading needed.
Why should they? With heavily limited competition, they could give customers horrible service while increasing their rates and most would still use their service because there aren't any viable alternatives. Upgrading infrastructure and capacity does nothing to increase their profits as they've discovered they can simply oversell their existing capacity legally with the magic words "speeds up to". Profits go up with no extra cost to expand which makes their actual customers, the shareholders, happy.
I shouldn't be allowed to make a campaign donation to a candidate I support? You'd make all those millions of dollars Obama and Ron Paul raised illegal? So only those who are independently wealthy can run for a political office? Does political speech mean nothing them? Who then pays for campaigns? Taxpayers? I certainly don't want any money I work to earn to go to either Hillary or McCain so they can be elected. I'd rather be able to willingly donate to those I support.
It seems to me that the people who are running for office now (or, I should say, the people who actually will win) are normally already independently rich. Moreover, campaign contributions are further pushing us into a two party system (although I might argue that we're already a one party system.. everyone has the same basic agenda but takes different routes to get there). When was the last time any political party other than the Democrats and Republicans had a snow ball's chance in Hell of winning? How many commercials do you see a night from one of those other parties versus the 2 or 3 every commercial break by our two leading parties?
Why do we really need all of those commercials in the first place? They don't add anything really to the campaign other than pushing voters around by using fear mongering, mudslinging, and misleading statements.
IMO the political parties all need to start on equal ground. Would it really be that bad to have a tax that went into a fund that got split up and given to all of the candidates at the beginning of the campaign? They'd each have a set amount to work with and they wouldn't be able to spend it frivolously.. once its gone its gone. Who cares if you give a little to an opposing party... they'd just be one of, hopefully, many and maybe we, as a people, could feel a bit better about who won knowing that they may have actually won on the issues and not on money. I think a system like this may actually give other parties a chance to flourish or at least make themselves a little more known to the general populace.
People may feel the same way you do about their money going towards other parties but has our current system really done that much better for us?
Again, the real reason I feel like campaign contributions are a problem is how they're negatively used. Why should a wealthy individual's or a corporation's point of view be more important than any other citizen's just because they can afford to dump a large sum of money into their favorite pocket-politician's war chest?
I thought about this more after I posted and that very point occurred to me since, as you stated, lobbying also serves as a way for citizens to influence government policy.
Honestly I don't have a good answer. Of course citizens should actively influence politics. However, I'd like to find out at least a ballpark figure on how many of the average citizens use this method of political change. From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.
I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of) and, in my mind, lobbying is connected because of the way they're both used by big business to inject their agendas into washington.
IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.
Same for campaign donations.. every attempt, that I've seen, to put restrictions on either of these practices has been quickly circumvented.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me too many people give too much power to a simple word. Essentially that's what we're doing here right? Gameplay remains unchanged, we're just changing the name of the other team. So is it because we fear the Taliban? Should we start calling them "The opposing force that must not be named"?
All of those other things you speak of can be monetized in some way by various corporations and governments. I don't think any of them have really found a good way of making money off of file sharing since their ridiculously large "winnings" in court are more than many people see in their entire lifetimes and therefore probably never get paid.
Thanks for the link!
It would appear that they have distanced themselves from Scientology in accordance with their board and investors in 2007. That makes me feel a bit better about using it but I'm still going to do some more reading on the subject.
Interesting, but Panda Software is linked to Scientology.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to let them send packets from your computer...
Wow, I didn't know that. I'm curious why this isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article I linked or the one specifically dealing with Panda Security.
I may have to think a bit more on this software... gah, what a way to tarnish an otherwise good idea!
Does anyone know if there is there any evidence out there to support that the software itself may do more than it's advertised AV protection?
I've been trying this out on my home computers so far and its definitely less resource intensive than previous AV solutions I've used. I haven't gotten infected with anything lately (that I know of) so I don't know how well it handles infections yet.
Actual web page is here and you can read up on it a bit here.
Just to put things in perspective:
My test on Firefox actually stuttered a bit but that could be resource load on my computer. Of course, Firefox's 92/100 is still a fail according to Acid3.
When you consider IE8's score I'd say that they're making good progress.
I'd be interested in seeing if it could run Windows 7 as well. I could probably make due with OSX if it ran the full Office 2007 suite (including OneNote).
I've been keeping my eye on tablet technology lately to see if it could be a viable solution for a higher ed classroom or mobile lab. From what I've seen of OneNote, it could be huge for students if it were running on a really nice multi-touch device.. preferably one with an optional stilus. I've looked at the Dell tablets, and while they're nice, they're more of a laptop with a touchscreen (granted, the screen can lay down to cover the keyboard and make a full tablet) and are pretty expensive.
Even if the iPad would be horrible for this scenario, I'm hoping it may encourage some more advances in the tablet market.
Right, because, you know, there aren't any resources up there or low gravity that could make it an interesting launch site for larger/long term space exploration vehicles.
Of course I've heard people talk about getting the same possibilities out of asteroid mining so maybe we'll head that route instead?
"Do not use your cell phone while driving"
Or get a good Bluetooth headset and a cell phone with voice control.
My old AT&T tilt worked wonders for this when combined with a good headset (using a Plantronics Voyager 510). Voice dialing could be initiated by taking one hand off the wheel for just a few seconds and I never had to take my eyes off the road.. same thing for hanging up. Answering the phone was even easier.
Unfortunately, my iPhone 3G is a step backwards in some ways, including the lack of voice dialing without needing to pull out the phone.
Of course, this does not help the people who lose focus while talking on a cell phone. I'm not sure how this is any different than talking to someone in the car but I've definitely seen people who have this problem.
The rich people used their resources and talents to acquire wealth whereas the poor did nothing to deserve the free money.
I'm a bit confused... how are an author's children, grand-children, and great grand-children any more deserving of this "free money"? They didn't write the book or use their talents to acquire this wealth, one of their ancestor's did.
I do agree an author needs to get paid, otherwise what is to encourage them to write more beyond their personal enjoyment of doing so? However, current copyright is extreme and, if big business has their way, will eventually be extended to infinity and the public domain will die. It is VERY possible to lose great works of culture if a company decides they want to spike the price of a certain work by stopping it's production for x amount of years.
I still think a set duration is best. Anywhere from 12 to 20 years sounds reasonable to me and gives the creator plenty of time to not only earn money from their work but also start on their next project. If they die during the copyright of a work then it should pass on to their estate but it should still expire at the end of it's allotted time.
This product is a reason why I love capitalism. New and cool stuff all the time. I hope they don't do anything anti-market to this product, like patenting it.
Yes, until they take the crud they absorbed and bury it underground right on top of the water table, because that ends up being the cheapest way to dispose of it for one reason or another.
Now that I think of it, that would also in turn increase demand for their product.. its like having their cake and eating it over and over and over!
Joking aside, it does seem interesting if it actually pans out to be a real product.
The armed forces protect everyone, jointly. Healthcare would apply to everyone, severally.
Big difference.
I get your point but I'm not really sure on that. Are the armed forces currently really protecting me in the Middle East right now? I know the politicians and the media say they are, and really I can't know if, had they not gone, if another 9/11 would have happened. There is also the humanitarian aspects to consider which don't really effect/protect me directly. Still though, sometimes I can't help but think the armed forces aren't protecting government/corporate interests more than mine. Not on an individual basis, mind you.. many join precisely to protect the freedoms of everyone... but on an organizational level.
Perhaps your ilk should move to a country where your socialist designs are already in effect, instead of trying to change our carefully designed governmental system outside the bounds of its authority.
I can't help but think I live in a different U.S. than you do.
There is nothing in this article that states that these things must be implimented everywhere.
They never said "here are five steps for operators of virtual worlds built for and targetting kids to take in order to...". Instead they said:
The Commission recommended five steps for virtual world operators to take in order to limit the exposure of kids to explicit content
The above quote leads me to believe this is their recommendation for all virtual world operators. My belief is further backed up by their researching many virtual world types, many of which, I'm fairly certain, are not targeted towards children.
I am a parent. And $#!@$ you for suggesting that it is lazy of me to expect Build-A-Bear to effectively prevent pedophiles from harassing my daughter on line
I specifically said "a good chunk" and not "all" because I realize not every parent is like this. Indeed, the ones that are may be in the minority, albeit a vocal one that is out there lobbying. There are also often other factors including the need for both parents to work so much these days just to make ends meet (which is a separate issue).
I was not trying to imply that you specifically or anyone else here necessarily fell into this group of parents I'm referring too.
Mod parent up.. beat me to the punch.
Parents should be the one who ultimately decide whether their kids are ready to join online worlds and, if they're not, prevent them from doing so.
We as a people should not need a government organization dictating what our children should or should not be exposed too. I realize it's politically incorrect to blame voting parents for anything these days but there is no government rules that will replace a good parenting. Furthermore, I'm starting to realize a good chunk of those pushing for things like this are parents who really don't want to put in the work to raise their children and instead would prefer the government or schools do it for them.
Valid point and it's a tricky argument. Obviously it is nice to be able to take care of your family in the event of a tragic situation occurring.
How about the estate gets the copyright for the duration of the original copyright? Lets use the 14 year copyright the GP mentioned.. if the artist dies ant there are still 9 years left on the copyright then the estate could retain the copyright for 9 years. If there is only 5 months left then the estate only gets the remaining 5 months.
This way, the copyright is honored to it's entirety and the estate benefits, assuming the copyright hasn't expired already. True, it would suck if the copyright only had a month left on it and the holder died and didn't leave much for his/her estate but that could be chalked up to bad planning (for emergencies) as the copyright has already payed out as much as it was ever going to.
Much of anything more, I'm afraid, could be easily abused (as it has been already). We could use the argument that there should be an extension so the family can continue being supported... but then what if a corporation gets the copyright.. just think of all the people working at the corporation and their families....
Copyright should not be a retirement plan.. not for the artist and not for their estates or corporations.
I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news
That is his first problem right there. They don't gather news, they gather entertainment and they present that entertainment with whatever spin they feel will best cause the effect they're looking for whether that be sympathy, outrage, shock, etc.
Don't get me wrong either, I'm not saying CNN is the only one like this and this isn't a political viewpoint where I'm categorizing news media into good, bad, left, or right. I'm saying all "news" programs are like this and have been this way for a while.
As for the public interaction via Twitter I don't see how that is a bad thing. In fact I think its a great way for them to keep in contact with their audience, live, and get the pulse of the public. I think it's great that someone at CNN is at least making an attempt at keeping up with some current technology trends and have found a way to use it as a possibly useful communication tool.
It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.
I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.
-They want to be able to charge $0.20 for each text message.
I really wish the people who complain about this would at least provide the proper perspective. The $0.20 per text cost is the cost without a plan. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile (AT&T as well?) all offer unlimited plans nowadays. Nobody with a clue is actually paying $0.20 per SMS.
I had a plan set up for several thousand text messages but was still getting charged for some of them. I think the ones I was getting charged for may have been international (which you have a to get a separate international plan to cover those apparently) but still. I'm pretty sure if I had an unlimited plan I'd still have the same issue.. its unlimited with certain limitations.
-They want to be able to force you to purchase a data plan with certain WiFi phones.
A friend mentioned to me the other day that he's read somewhere that AT&T is planning on forcing data plans on any account that has a SmartPhone/PDA. According to him, if you don't call them and put the data plan on there willingly, supposedly they're just going to add it on themselves.
A quick search on Google seems to back this information up although, according to these sources, it should have started in September:
AT&T to force data plans with all smartphones starting next month
AT&T to Require Data Plan for Smartphone Users
True, I'd say a lot of people that have smartphones probably use data, but I know people who have phones on their account that aren't even in use and are simply there to hold their phone number (they have it forwarded to another phone for instance) and don't use the data. They could probably try to switch the phones over to a simpler one for this functionality, but if they're stuck in the middle of a two year contract that can be problematic as well.
I think expanding network neutrality arguments to cell networks is a little over-reaching.
Which is exactly what AT&T and the other wireless providers want you to think. Hell, even the ISPs want you to think that for your cable/DSL.
Admittedly, I don't know the specifics completely nor do I know for sure if it extended to cellular providers, but sometime during the 90s the ISPs were provided money in some form or fashion to build up their infrastructure to support the growing userbase. They took the money but didn't use it the way they were supposed to. I'd be willing to bet most of these companies have the money now but they won't use it to do the upgrading needed.
Why should they? With heavily limited competition, they could give customers horrible service while increasing their rates and most would still use their service because there aren't any viable alternatives. Upgrading infrastructure and capacity does nothing to increase their profits as they've discovered they can simply oversell their existing capacity legally with the magic words "speeds up to". Profits go up with no extra cost to expand which makes their actual customers, the shareholders, happy.
Vista and up use the new control panel while XP still uses IE and the website.
At least not unless it's still being used on the back end somehow:
Windows Update
I shouldn't be allowed to make a campaign donation to a candidate I support? You'd make all those millions of dollars Obama and Ron Paul raised illegal? So only those who are independently wealthy can run for a political office? Does political speech mean nothing them? Who then pays for campaigns? Taxpayers? I certainly don't want any money I work to earn to go to either Hillary or McCain so they can be elected. I'd rather be able to willingly donate to those I support.
It seems to me that the people who are running for office now (or, I should say, the people who actually will win) are normally already independently rich. Moreover, campaign contributions are further pushing us into a two party system (although I might argue that we're already a one party system.. everyone has the same basic agenda but takes different routes to get there). When was the last time any political party other than the Democrats and Republicans had a snow ball's chance in Hell of winning? How many commercials do you see a night from one of those other parties versus the 2 or 3 every commercial break by our two leading parties?
Why do we really need all of those commercials in the first place? They don't add anything really to the campaign other than pushing voters around by using fear mongering, mudslinging, and misleading statements.
IMO the political parties all need to start on equal ground. Would it really be that bad to have a tax that went into a fund that got split up and given to all of the candidates at the beginning of the campaign? They'd each have a set amount to work with and they wouldn't be able to spend it frivolously.. once its gone its gone. Who cares if you give a little to an opposing party... they'd just be one of, hopefully, many and maybe we, as a people, could feel a bit better about who won knowing that they may have actually won on the issues and not on money. I think a system like this may actually give other parties a chance to flourish or at least make themselves a little more known to the general populace.
People may feel the same way you do about their money going towards other parties but has our current system really done that much better for us?
Again, the real reason I feel like campaign contributions are a problem is how they're negatively used. Why should a wealthy individual's or a corporation's point of view be more important than any other citizen's just because they can afford to dump a large sum of money into their favorite pocket-politician's war chest?
I thought about this more after I posted and that very point occurred to me since, as you stated, lobbying also serves as a way for citizens to influence government policy.
Honestly I don't have a good answer. Of course citizens should actively influence politics. However, I'd like to find out at least a ballpark figure on how many of the average citizens use this method of political change. From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.
I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of) and, in my mind, lobbying is connected because of the way they're both used by big business to inject their agendas into washington.
Just my two cents.
IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.
Same for campaign donations.. every attempt, that I've seen, to put restrictions on either of these practices has been quickly circumvented.