How is helping broadband going to stimulate the economy?
You give money to company (hopefully with a mandate to build fiber lines). You need someone to dig up the ground and lay the lines...gotta pay people to do that. Gotta pay companies to provide you supplies. Those companies gotta pay people to build those supplies, etc. That's how the economy is stimulated - by providing money to companies to create jobs for useful products (don't think anybody here on/. will disagree that fiber lines are useful). See it's a win-win. We create jobs and a useful product/service. But that would be wasteful, better money should be spent on giving movie companies 350 million because they apparantly don't make enough money (Dark Knight made about 150 million alone).
Actually open and free markets, as far as the telcos/cable companies go, is something we do NOT have. It's regulated by local laws, and politicians often have their wallets padded to prevent competition. Until recently, in Philadelphia, you could only have c omcast, dialup, satellite, or dsl. You could not have FIOS. Why? Because comcast wanted it that way. It bribed politicians and built a brand new (tallest) building in the city. About two weeks ago the councilman (due to mayor nutter) voted to ALLOW verizon to lay fios. So much for free markets.
All the fed needs to do is pass a clean bill (ha) that allows free markets for broadband access, and prevent companies from violating net neutrality. Won't happen.
Because comcast owns the lines. Because AT&T owns the internal lines. Because Verizon owns the local lines. If there is no regulation in place (totally free-market) net-neutrality will be a myth (if it isn't already so). Regulation can prevent net neutrality, which is something the cable/telecoms do not want. Remember the cable/telcos want to charge a company, that is not their hosting customer, extra money. So if you go to Google (via your comcast connection), and google is a customer of Verizon, but not of say Comcast, then Google will be artificially slower for you...unless Google wants to pay Comcast extra fee's.
Gov't needs to not prevent competition (e.g. up until a week or two ago only comcast was allowed in philadelphia. They recently voted to allow Verizon to lay FIOS cable). Gov't does need to regulate matters to prevent big-business from taking advantage. Do you not think Comcast/Verizon won't do things to increase their profit margin at the expense of someone else? Look at ATM's....back when first introduced they were regulated so the banks could NOT charge you service fee's for using an ATM machine. Once that regulation was removed CitiBank instituted a 25 cent surcharge. Then other banks followed...and now you pay on the lower end of the scale $2...lots of places even more then that. BTW, as of 2003 the average cost (for both banks TOTAL) of an ATM charge was about 2-4 cents per transaction...and they charge $2 on the lower end of the scale, per transaction.
Gov't regulation can work if implemented correctly.
The RIAA lawyers are on hold - they said they would be more then happy to represent you. Just sign on the contract form they are providing. Don't worry if that it is thicker then encyclopedia Brittanica, it's just standard jargon.
Interestingly enough girls, at least the one I have dated, would go crazy over something like this not because it is geeky (none of the girls I have ever dated were geeky...hard to find hot and geeky) but because it took time/effort. This would score more points and I've known some pretty high maintenance girls (you know, the ones that are likely to become sugar daddy girls).
It was.asp. I am not sure how to do it with the out-of-the-box software other then to edit their graphics. The problem with boxed products it that bots may be programmed to deal with them.
Easily solvable.
1) If your users hate registering force them to key in the text on a hashed image. Get 40+ hashed images with text and you are good to go. Better if you get a program that will randomly generate them.
2) If users don't care about registration, then use that and include the hashed image.
Now you just killed bot-spammers. I had a client with the bot-spam (thousands of messages each day killing the 50-100 posts from her users). She didn't want them to have to register to post so we did the hash image method.
Yeah, and they should pay for the gas it takes for transporting all those safety features in your car too. Or you could, you know, delete the browsers you don't want.
So now the users have to spend extra time removing the files the government feels should be in there. Including the registry files, and who knows what other hidden files.
This is the government stopping corporate criminals instead of being easily bribed like the US government was. I wish US politicians has as much integrity.
Yes these criminals, preventing FireFox from getting 20% market share on their own.
Opera makes its money with Opera Mobile. They're doing well. They're also spending millions needlessly in order to work around slews of broken Web pages that investigations have shown MS intentionally created as a way to break interoperability. This is Opera reporting a crime that is costing them money and expecting the government to enforce the laws on the books that everyone else has to obey.
The only difference between this and a pizza joint calling the cops when the mob burns down one of their restaurants is that you understand arson laws while you have no understanding of antitrust laws... either what they say or why they exist.
A broken website is not costing Opera money. If a site is not open compliance and doesn't work well with other browsers then you may want to blame the programmer of the site. If MS wants it's own sites to only work with MS products that is their choice, and it is your choice to boycott MS. BTW, I d/l'd Windows 7...didn't work with IE, worked with FireFox go figure. Opera is not doing so hot compared to FireFox, maybe Opera should also call Mozilla criminals. Apparantly FireFox doesn't have the issue Opera does.
As for the laws, you really shouldn't comment about what I do or don't know. Makes you seem moronic
If the EU were to require Firefox and other browsers to be bundled in order to help undo the damage that MS has done, they are well within their rights. The market is broken and MS will hopefully be required to do whatever is needed to correct it. If you don't like it, buy a different OS or buy a version of the OS repackaged by an OEM or other non-monopolist to have those items you don't like stripped out. There is no reason every Web browser company and every Web user should suffer reduced innovation and interoperability just because you would have to delete a few files. Sorry if it is inconvenient, MS should have thought of that before they broke the law in the first place. If you want to be mad about the inconvenience, maybe you should look at the criminal instead of the victim.
1) A gov't's ability to create/enforce law doesn't make it the right thing to do. So using that as part of your argument, especially on this forum, is ridiculous
2) The market is not broken due to MS. MS helped the computer industry flourish - ala 1995 and the free computers if you subscribed to MS online services which was amazing for the computer nub
3) If you don't like it buy another OS. So that argument can be used for anyone right now - If you don't like what MS is doing buy a different OS. You are trying to get it both ways? First you are saying the gov't should regulate and in the other way you are saying if you don't like it get something else. So given that, why should the gov't regulate? Why can't the EU just say "hey if you are not happy with MS's product, get something else"? The reason: you are an MS basher and will say anything to just bash them.
4) It is your opinion that IE is reduced innovation/interoperability, and maybe it is - but every user has the option to do what I did...go to another browser company and install THEIR software and use THEIR software. Why should those users be forced to delete software they do not want?
5) The EU forcing MS to install different browsers, making me have to uninstall them and hope my registry is cl
The requirement is that Firefox be available (ie on the disk). Perhaps even installed by default. Unlike IE, there's nothing preventing you from deleting it, or probably not even installing it in the first place.
So when I buy my computer, from XYZ manufacturer, and it comes installed with Windows I have it already pre-installed. So I have to uninstall, and there will probably be residual traces like registry changes. So right off the bat I, the consumer, have to make changes to my OS because the government thinks it knows better then me as to what software should go on my computer. And you support that? Maybe the government should mandate every piece of software out there come with DRM software built in, parental lock software built in, packet tracking software built in, and software to block sites like your favorite torrent sites. No, you're right, that's a great idea.
If the Eu wants to force MS to bundle additional software into their OS, then fine, the EU should also be paying for the extra space that software takes on my HD. I charge a reasonable rate of $5/megabyte. For all those who complain about big-gov't and their hand in the cookie-jar - this is it. This is a company, Opera, crying to the gov't because Opera failed at their product. How did they fail? Look at FireFox 20% market share, and growing. Look at Opera. Make a great product, get people aware and you will have the market-share.
I use FireFox, I love FireFox - but if I didn't why should I have my HD congested with their install because the gov't said so?
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple; ford mustang - I can go to an after-markets store to buy their product which was not made in a ford factory. If you want OS-X, where are you legally allowed to get that...yea...
They may not have the market-share of Microsoft, but they have a monopoly. Just like MS doesn't want people's fingers in their OS, Apple doesn't want people's fingers in their hardware. So if you want to bash MS for monopoly, then you better buy an extra hammer for Apple.
Tell that to anyone who refers to the blue 'E' as "The Internet".
I have been using computers for 25 years, am in the tech industry, and it took me a good 30 seconds to figure out what the "blue 'E'" is.
As the architect for FireFox said, as people become more aware they change. FireFox has a 20% marketshare and they didn't need any bundeling - they just needed a good solid product backed by the geeks (us) who forced their parents/friends to use FireFox. My mom doesn't even know what Internet Explorer is, but she knows FireFox, Google, and G-mail. She loves buying her expensive perfume at 40% off Macy's cost.
First of all, how are browsers being measured in terms of market share? What happens when there are multiple brands installed in the same seat? How about VM images?
Well two things can be done to combat this. One, compare usage, not installs. Great you have IE installed on your computer, well duh you have windows and so do I, but do you use it? I ONLY use it on sites that require it (right now only OWA for me, but it used to be my bank - not anymore). So when they track Internet usage my share goes to FireFox. What happens when people have VM and each instance of VM has a different browser (which is odd in itself) - how many people use VM compared to the rest of the Internet using population? Not that much so it's impact would be minimal. Again, installation does not = market share...usage does. Otherwise, at one point I had five browsers on my computer (for QA testing).
This is a great thing coming from FireFox. I have been a long advocate that bundeling IE into windows (I believe the IE platform is a core component of windows) does not give Windows a monopoly. My opinion on IE (other then I have to use it for OWA), it's sole purpose is for me to be able to download FireFox on a fresh install. In fact, the FIRST thing I install after doing a fresh Windows install is go to mozilla and get FireFox. Then I go for installing/updating my anti-virus (avg, until ezTrust comes out with 64 bit) and firewall (pc tools).
Sounds promising, until you go to open Notepad and you find out you need to install it. Or you need to install Java to run a java app on the web. Or need to install.net so you can run other apps. While some, especially the moer tech savvy, will say "bring it on", grand-ma and grand-pa will be confused. Slim-down, cut-out the fat products help the more savvy (advanced installation users) but really hurt those who have no clue.
A better way - make the install disk's advanced installation give a list of components that can be removed from the install, while the basic user can get the full install. oh, wait.
I am not sure of your local media, but I am having problems with Philadelphia Parking Authority (they keep ticketing me in areas that I have a permit for). This has been gonig on for four years (getting about 1-2 tickets/month). I did a search on the net and one of my local news stations (CBS Action Hotline) is trying to help me out. This has not hit the TV, but right now I have a person who works for them and her job is to help prod PPA along. I have my paperwork in order, and proof is on my side. So who knows what will happen.
What does this mean for you? Try and look up if your local news media has an action group. Create a website (make sure it doesn't come off as inflammetory/whiney) and start spamming the world iwth the link. Make it with a sign-up forum so people can register their local complaints "e.g. city, state, zip, comment, cable provider". Grass roots stuff, if done properly, can get big attention. But I think just googling (again what I did) action help lines would do well. Goodluck!
I could tell you exactly how the money would be used, by the American tax-payer.
1) Paying down bills - good - but no reinvestment into the econonmy
2) Buying products - good if spent on US products, but most likely foreign products - great for Best Buy - but not the US.
3) Going to your local gambling institution and blowing the money away.
4) Tourism - great, except people will travel to Cancun, not Utah.
Overall, fixing the issue top-down will directly create jobs which will get money into the pockets of the unemployed, soon to be employed and then into paying down bills, retail, gambling, and tourism. With the benefit of getting people off unemployment, well-fare, and medicaid which cost us tax-payer money.
This stimulous package, while I abhore a lot of it (mainly giving money to movie execs, and not giving money to education based projects like NASA, schools, etc), is designed to stimulate from top-down. So if money goes into updating federal buildings to be more green...well those are construction jobs. That creates jobs for construction workers, architects, suppliers, manufacturing, all the way down to the food cart vendor who will sell food to the construction workers. In addition it has the side-effect of making our federal buildings more green which helps keep their cost down and reducing our dependency on energy (with regards to petrolium products - a finite resource).
By giving money to the people directly you are not creating jobs, with the exception of a few more sales positions at Best Buy. In the meantime the money is being used to either 1) pay down debt or 2) -the most likely scenario- someone buying products...which would be "OK" if we could gaurantee the money goes to US based products - which it won't (how many US made TVs are there?). On top of that, we don't have new jobs like construction jobs, and we don't have buildings which are more green.
Obama made a lot of promises, and he has a lot of swing with his bat - but he can only veto the bill - the actual contents of the bill are not his to directly decide.
For anyone out there who is screaming bloody murder to democrats, and god-save-the-republicans...remember how we got into this mess, and remember - while the republicans may not support this billl they still have their fat fingers in it.
So while like you I believe in smaller government this bill would have done a lot of good. And I am willing to bet a steak dinner there is a hell of a lot more than 2 billion in pork in this thing that will help NOBODY but those that bribed....err lobbied their congress critters. And that is just sad because there are a lot of families like my mom and sis that could use and would be damned glad for even 768k. And I apologize for the length, but some things just can't be wrapped up in a soundbite like the congress critters use, at least not by me.
About 350 million for movie producers to buy more movies. Maybe you guys, in your neighborhood, should contact the media outlets (even places like CNN) and get a sympathy piece? Usually those will get the beheamoth company to not only acquiece, but do so for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that suburbs are getting upgraded cable lines, new fiber lines, etc before the inner city does.
ORLY?
Brief: Comcast lobbies local Philadelphia gov't to slow/prevent Verizon from laying FIOS.
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/spotlight-comcast-lobbies-slow-philadelphia-verizon-fios/2008-12-01
Brief: Verizon gets committee vote, after years of fighting, to lay FIOS in Philadelphia
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/committee-moves-forward-verizon-fios-philadelphia-franchise-agreement/2009-01-22
BTW, this only happened because of the new mayor (Nutter).
Verizon FIOS has been in the greater philadelphia area since 2006.
http://www.tvover.net/2006/12/06/Verizon+Launches+FiOS+TV+In+Greater+Philadelphia+Area.aspx
So bite me with your spewed trash. Local gov'ts, Philadelphia is notorious, are corrupt.
How is helping broadband going to stimulate the economy?
You give money to company (hopefully with a mandate to build fiber lines). You need someone to dig up the ground and lay the lines...gotta pay people to do that. Gotta pay companies to provide you supplies. Those companies gotta pay people to build those supplies, etc. That's how the economy is stimulated - by providing money to companies to create jobs for useful products (don't think anybody here on /. will disagree that fiber lines are useful). See it's a win-win. We create jobs and a useful product/service. But that would be wasteful, better money should be spent on giving movie companies 350 million because they apparantly don't make enough money (Dark Knight made about 150 million alone).
Actually open and free markets, as far as the telcos/cable companies go, is something we do NOT have. It's regulated by local laws, and politicians often have their wallets padded to prevent competition. Until recently, in Philadelphia, you could only have c omcast, dialup, satellite, or dsl. You could not have FIOS. Why? Because comcast wanted it that way. It bribed politicians and built a brand new (tallest) building in the city. About two weeks ago the councilman (due to mayor nutter) voted to ALLOW verizon to lay fios. So much for free markets.
All the fed needs to do is pass a clean bill (ha) that allows free markets for broadband access, and prevent companies from violating net neutrality. Won't happen.
Because comcast owns the lines. Because AT&T owns the internal lines. Because Verizon owns the local lines. If there is no regulation in place (totally free-market) net-neutrality will be a myth (if it isn't already so). Regulation can prevent net neutrality, which is something the cable/telecoms do not want. Remember the cable/telcos want to charge a company, that is not their hosting customer, extra money. So if you go to Google (via your comcast connection), and google is a customer of Verizon, but not of say Comcast, then Google will be artificially slower for you...unless Google wants to pay Comcast extra fee's.
Gov't needs to not prevent competition (e.g. up until a week or two ago only comcast was allowed in philadelphia. They recently voted to allow Verizon to lay FIOS cable). Gov't does need to regulate matters to prevent big-business from taking advantage. Do you not think Comcast/Verizon won't do things to increase their profit margin at the expense of someone else? Look at ATM's....back when first introduced they were regulated so the banks could NOT charge you service fee's for using an ATM machine. Once that regulation was removed CitiBank instituted a 25 cent surcharge. Then other banks followed...and now you pay on the lower end of the scale $2...lots of places even more then that. BTW, as of 2003 the average cost (for both banks TOTAL) of an ATM charge was about 2-4 cents per transaction...and they charge $2 on the lower end of the scale, per transaction.
Gov't regulation can work if implemented correctly.
So it's your own semi-personal (probably 4-8 people) mono-rail car? Big whoop?
Though the submission post sounded like something the patent office would take and patent, even though mono-rail has been around for quit sometime.
The RIAA lawyers are on hold - they said they would be more then happy to represent you. Just sign on the contract form they are providing. Don't worry if that it is thicker then encyclopedia Brittanica, it's just standard jargon.
I read the article submission, now I have a headache.. You can reboot individual processors in a computer?
Interestingly enough girls, at least the one I have dated, would go crazy over something like this not because it is geeky (none of the girls I have ever dated were geeky...hard to find hot and geeky) but because it took time/effort. This would score more points and I've known some pretty high maintenance girls (you know, the ones that are likely to become sugar daddy girls).
Good job to those making stuff like this.
It was .asp. I am not sure how to do it with the out-of-the-box software other then to edit their graphics. The problem with boxed products it that bots may be programmed to deal with them.
Anyhow, the site is: http://executivemoms.ning.com/profiles/blogs/speaking-as-mom-of-the-month & tge registration is http://executivemoms.ning.com/main/authorization/signUp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fexecutivemoms.ning.com%2Fprofiles%2Fblogs%2Fspeaking-as-mom-of-the-month
Easily solvable.
1) If your users hate registering force them to key in the text on a hashed image. Get 40+ hashed images with text and you are good to go. Better if you get a program that will randomly generate them.
2) If users don't care about registration, then use that and include the hashed image.
Now you just killed bot-spammers. I had a client with the bot-spam (thousands of messages each day killing the 50-100 posts from her users). She didn't want them to have to register to post so we did the hash image method.
Yeah, and they should pay for the gas it takes for transporting all those safety features in your car too. Or you could, you know, delete the browsers you don't want.
So now the users have to spend extra time removing the files the government feels should be in there. Including the registry files, and who knows what other hidden files.
This is the government stopping corporate criminals instead of being easily bribed like the US government was. I wish US politicians has as much integrity.
Yes these criminals, preventing FireFox from getting 20% market share on their own.
Opera makes its money with Opera Mobile. They're doing well. They're also spending millions needlessly in order to work around slews of broken Web pages that investigations have shown MS intentionally created as a way to break interoperability. This is Opera reporting a crime that is costing them money and expecting the government to enforce the laws on the books that everyone else has to obey. The only difference between this and a pizza joint calling the cops when the mob burns down one of their restaurants is that you understand arson laws while you have no understanding of antitrust laws... either what they say or why they exist.
A broken website is not costing Opera money. If a site is not open compliance and doesn't work well with other browsers then you may want to blame the programmer of the site. If MS wants it's own sites to only work with MS products that is their choice, and it is your choice to boycott MS. BTW, I d/l'd Windows 7...didn't work with IE, worked with FireFox go figure. Opera is not doing so hot compared to FireFox, maybe Opera should also call Mozilla criminals. Apparantly FireFox doesn't have the issue Opera does.
As for the laws, you really shouldn't comment about what I do or don't know. Makes you seem moronic
If the EU were to require Firefox and other browsers to be bundled in order to help undo the damage that MS has done, they are well within their rights. The market is broken and MS will hopefully be required to do whatever is needed to correct it. If you don't like it, buy a different OS or buy a version of the OS repackaged by an OEM or other non-monopolist to have those items you don't like stripped out. There is no reason every Web browser company and every Web user should suffer reduced innovation and interoperability just because you would have to delete a few files. Sorry if it is inconvenient, MS should have thought of that before they broke the law in the first place. If you want to be mad about the inconvenience, maybe you should look at the criminal instead of the victim.
1) A gov't's ability to create/enforce law doesn't make it the right thing to do. So using that as part of your argument, especially on this forum, is ridiculous
2) The market is not broken due to MS. MS helped the computer industry flourish - ala 1995 and the free computers if you subscribed to MS online services which was amazing for the computer nub
3) If you don't like it buy another OS. So that argument can be used for anyone right now - If you don't like what MS is doing buy a different OS. You are trying to get it both ways? First you are saying the gov't should regulate and in the other way you are saying if you don't like it get something else. So given that, why should the gov't regulate? Why can't the EU just say "hey if you are not happy with MS's product, get something else"? The reason: you are an MS basher and will say anything to just bash them.
4) It is your opinion that IE is reduced innovation/interoperability, and maybe it is - but every user has the option to do what I did...go to another browser company and install THEIR software and use THEIR software. Why should those users be forced to delete software they do not want?
5) The EU forcing MS to install different browsers, making me have to uninstall them and hope my registry is cl
The requirement is that Firefox be available (ie on the disk). Perhaps even installed by default. Unlike IE, there's nothing preventing you from deleting it, or probably not even installing it in the first place.
So when I buy my computer, from XYZ manufacturer, and it comes installed with Windows I have it already pre-installed. So I have to uninstall, and there will probably be residual traces like registry changes. So right off the bat I, the consumer, have to make changes to my OS because the government thinks it knows better then me as to what software should go on my computer. And you support that? Maybe the government should mandate every piece of software out there come with DRM software built in, parental lock software built in, packet tracking software built in, and software to block sites like your favorite torrent sites. No, you're right, that's a great idea.
I get the impression that you have no idea what package management is, and how good it is for grand-pas and grand-moms.
And I'm pretty sure neither does grand-ma or grand-pa. That's the point of my OP.
Says who? From what I can tell, you can get a lot of parts for Apple's version of the PC - they are now the same as anybody else's.
Internal, not external. We are not talking mice, printers, wireless routers.
If the Eu wants to force MS to bundle additional software into their OS, then fine, the EU should also be paying for the extra space that software takes on my HD. I charge a reasonable rate of $5/megabyte. For all those who complain about big-gov't and their hand in the cookie-jar - this is it. This is a company, Opera, crying to the gov't because Opera failed at their product. How did they fail? Look at FireFox 20% market share, and growing. Look at Opera. Make a great product, get people aware and you will have the market-share.
I use FireFox, I love FireFox - but if I didn't why should I have my HD congested with their install because the gov't said so?
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple; ford mustang - I can go to an after-markets store to buy their product which was not made in a ford factory. If you want OS-X, where are you legally allowed to get that...yea...
They may not have the market-share of Microsoft, but they have a monopoly. Just like MS doesn't want people's fingers in their OS, Apple doesn't want people's fingers in their hardware. So if you want to bash MS for monopoly, then you better buy an extra hammer for Apple.
Tell that to anyone who refers to the blue 'E' as "The Internet".
I have been using computers for 25 years, am in the tech industry, and it took me a good 30 seconds to figure out what the "blue 'E'" is.
As the architect for FireFox said, as people become more aware they change. FireFox has a 20% marketshare and they didn't need any bundeling - they just needed a good solid product backed by the geeks (us) who forced their parents/friends to use FireFox. My mom doesn't even know what Internet Explorer is, but she knows FireFox, Google, and G-mail. She loves buying her expensive perfume at 40% off Macy's cost.
First of all, how are browsers being measured in terms of market share? What happens when there are multiple brands installed in the same seat? How about VM images?
Well two things can be done to combat this. One, compare usage, not installs. Great you have IE installed on your computer, well duh you have windows and so do I, but do you use it? I ONLY use it on sites that require it (right now only OWA for me, but it used to be my bank - not anymore). So when they track Internet usage my share goes to FireFox. What happens when people have VM and each instance of VM has a different browser (which is odd in itself) - how many people use VM compared to the rest of the Internet using population? Not that much so it's impact would be minimal. Again, installation does not = market share...usage does. Otherwise, at one point I had five browsers on my computer (for QA testing).
This is a great thing coming from FireFox. I have been a long advocate that bundeling IE into windows (I believe the IE platform is a core component of windows) does not give Windows a monopoly. My opinion on IE (other then I have to use it for OWA), it's sole purpose is for me to be able to download FireFox on a fresh install. In fact, the FIRST thing I install after doing a fresh Windows install is go to mozilla and get FireFox. Then I go for installing/updating my anti-virus (avg, until ezTrust comes out with 64 bit) and firewall (pc tools).
Sounds promising, until you go to open Notepad and you find out you need to install it. Or you need to install Java to run a java app on the web. Or need to install .net so you can run other apps. While some, especially the moer tech savvy, will say "bring it on", grand-ma and grand-pa will be confused. Slim-down, cut-out the fat products help the more savvy (advanced installation users) but really hurt those who have no clue.
A better way - make the install disk's advanced installation give a list of components that can be removed from the install, while the basic user can get the full install. oh, wait.
I am not sure of your local media, but I am having problems with Philadelphia Parking Authority (they keep ticketing me in areas that I have a permit for). This has been gonig on for four years (getting about 1-2 tickets/month). I did a search on the net and one of my local news stations (CBS Action Hotline) is trying to help me out. This has not hit the TV, but right now I have a person who works for them and her job is to help prod PPA along. I have my paperwork in order, and proof is on my side. So who knows what will happen.
What does this mean for you? Try and look up if your local news media has an action group. Create a website (make sure it doesn't come off as inflammetory/whiney) and start spamming the world iwth the link. Make it with a sign-up forum so people can register their local complaints "e.g. city, state, zip, comment, cable provider". Grass roots stuff, if done properly, can get big attention. But I think just googling (again what I did) action help lines would do well. Goodluck!
I could tell you exactly how the money would be used, by the American tax-payer.
1) Paying down bills - good - but no reinvestment into the econonmy
2) Buying products - good if spent on US products, but most likely foreign products - great for Best Buy - but not the US.
3) Going to your local gambling institution and blowing the money away.
4) Tourism - great, except people will travel to Cancun, not Utah.
Overall, fixing the issue top-down will directly create jobs which will get money into the pockets of the unemployed, soon to be employed and then into paying down bills, retail, gambling, and tourism. With the benefit of getting people off unemployment, well-fare, and medicaid which cost us tax-payer money.
This stimulous package, while I abhore a lot of it (mainly giving money to movie execs, and not giving money to education based projects like NASA, schools, etc), is designed to stimulate from top-down. So if money goes into updating federal buildings to be more green...well those are construction jobs. That creates jobs for construction workers, architects, suppliers, manufacturing, all the way down to the food cart vendor who will sell food to the construction workers. In addition it has the side-effect of making our federal buildings more green which helps keep their cost down and reducing our dependency on energy (with regards to petrolium products - a finite resource).
By giving money to the people directly you are not creating jobs, with the exception of a few more sales positions at Best Buy. In the meantime the money is being used to either 1) pay down debt or 2) -the most likely scenario- someone buying products...which would be "OK" if we could gaurantee the money goes to US based products - which it won't (how many US made TVs are there?). On top of that, we don't have new jobs like construction jobs, and we don't have buildings which are more green.
Obama made a lot of promises, and he has a lot of swing with his bat - but he can only veto the bill - the actual contents of the bill are not his to directly decide.
For anyone out there who is screaming bloody murder to democrats, and god-save-the-republicans...remember how we got into this mess, and remember - while the republicans may not support this billl they still have their fat fingers in it.
So while like you I believe in smaller government this bill would have done a lot of good. And I am willing to bet a steak dinner there is a hell of a lot more than 2 billion in pork in this thing that will help NOBODY but those that bribed....err lobbied their congress critters. And that is just sad because there are a lot of families like my mom and sis that could use and would be damned glad for even 768k. And I apologize for the length, but some things just can't be wrapped up in a soundbite like the congress critters use, at least not by me.
About 350 million for movie producers to buy more movies. Maybe you guys, in your neighborhood, should contact the media outlets (even places like CNN) and get a sympathy piece? Usually those will get the beheamoth company to not only acquiece, but do so for free.
Don't worry, they still managed to keep the money given to movie companies so they could buy more movie franchises...