Was just about to point out the dishonest spin in the teaser, but you took the words out of my mouth. I have been involved with issue mailings to people that have previously indicated interest in something and gotten far far less of a response. A 34% response indicates that they had a very very well targeted mailing and indicates that there are a lot of people that do in fact share the perspective. I still think there is a large majority for net neutrality and therefore the FCC which represents the interest of the public should clearly act in that direction.
Also, I have to add that given my more or less libertarian perspective I don't think the Koch brothers anti-regulation libertarian perspective is completely wrong. I just think in this case regulation has already been applied in a lopsided manner that benefited larger businesses, prevented competition and penalized consumers so there is a need to undo the damage caused by previous regulation in a thoughtful way and in this case that means applying different regulations including net neutrality and regulations that effectively promote local competition.
But if all else was equal with vibrant local competition for ISPs I would have been against net neutrality as a government overreach, but I think that largely as a result of regulatory capture that we now are faced with monopolies that are able to corrupt the free market and exert more than their fair share of control so that we need a well crafted net neutrality policy to counterbalance that.
But in my perfect world the FCC would be dissolved by Congress and a new government agency would be focused solely on licensing and regulating over the air spectrum to prevent interference. I see the problem with Comcast and Verizon as being issues of a broken free market and not strictly communications, where issues of local monopolies should be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission in a more vigorous and consistently anti-monopoly way.
What we have gained is smaller and smaller computing devices with more and more energy efficiency which allows us to go mobile and to also reduce costs on cloud infrastructure. Maybe it forced a step backwards in terms of application software compared to high powered desktops... but being able to put what would have been a fully spec'd computer less than a decade ago in your pocket and have it run for a day on batteries is something to find amazing and should not be lamented.
I'd say if we are looking at making the desktop more relevant again, then it has to be a worthwhile enough experience to overcome the trade off to be sitting at a desk. High resolution monitors, multi-monitor applications, touch screen high resolution monitors laid flat on a conference table. (not head-mounted displays because those should be hooked to mobile devices to avoid cords), these seem like opportunities for "desktop" or workstation class or fixed computing applications where the display or inputs won't just fit in your pocket or on your glasses. Otherwise mobile and cloud computing are where it is at.
I basically agree with you, but I think this is a case of the technology and experience of making extreme earth environments more habitable eventually being applicable to Mars when we are prosperous and have the robotic construction technology for it to make sense. If we can bring greater sustainable habitability to our oceans, deserts and Antarctica or even underground cities on Earth, then I think that would be a good starting point and proof of concept for the even more extreme environments on other planets. Another Moon-shot scenario where we go to Mars as some sort of competition at unsustainable expense won't lead to sustainable colonization. Reducing the cost of Earth based construction and mining with more practical automation would be a good way to develop the types of technology that are needed for colonization or asteroid mining. And being able to build and rebuild housing at lower cost would raise people's standard of living here at home.
I think that is an important point. Unmanned drones certainly can give additional capabilities at potentially lower costs. But the privacy consideration should be in what the police are allowed to do without a warrant regardless of whether it is a manned helicopter or an unmanned one or a person up on a hill or a tower that has a good vantage point. Restrictions such as not peering in through windows into a house or using different wavelengths of light to determine heat signatures in a house or using a laser/radar to ease-drop on the conversations of occupants of a house or building without a warrant or a bona fide emergency situation are all appropriate restrictions that should equally apply to all technology rather than single out any one particular technology.
This could be a case where the more specific a law protecting privacy is, then the more loop holes for using other technology in the same way are created.
They just approved a 37% electricity rate increase here in Massachusetts... The utility companies will get their money until people can go off the grid completely:
http://www.masslive.com/busine...
This is the most important point being lost in the arguments against Corporate "Inversions" and other ways profits made overseas are "stashed" overseas. The taxes that discourage bringing profits earned overseas back to the US are the problem.
Let companies bring the money back to the US tax free and the capital will get invested here resulting in taxable wages and salaries that help grow the US economy. No, this tax free arrangement wouldn't work for individual income taxes because it would be an easy tax dodge for those getting income from outside the country and still actually residing in the US. But companies ARE different than individuals in that even a cursory audit would demonstrate where the sales and revenue were actually coming from. Large companies should be taxed where they are doing business regardless of where their headquarters are.
Much of the developing countries and China's pollution is a result of export focused industry. Exports that go to the US and other countries. Maybe the overall effects will eventually be positive if those developing countries can adopt cleaner technologies, but at this point it appears that many of the environmental efforts over the last 50 years.have just shifted the problems of pollution and habitat loss overseas. As if we just said to China, send us a bunch of batteries to power our society and we don't care how you charge them. Unless we go ahead and block imports, then the supply chain matters. I am not disagreeing with the assessment of complete jack-assery and hypocrisy of many Global leaders. But if we are going to solve the problem, then it can no longer be about shifting pollution to other countries.
Yes, unfortunately we have two political parties in the US who believe they represent their faction and not the people. They have made undermining the majority preferences of the people that live in their districts into something noble that they can sell to their supporters to raise money. Parties which were formed claiming to protect American values of Liberty and democracy now undermine our institutions.
Except for protecting and defending the constitutional rights enshrined in the constitution, a Congressman's ONLY job should be trying to understand what the majority of people in their district want and vote accordingly.
Sure Congressmen can and should lead on issues and argue for policies they believe in, but when it comes time to vote on legislation their own unbiased polling of their constituents should be what is the deciding factor. Instead we have politicians pandering to special interests based on their level of activism or whether they can raise money for them. With thousands of pages in many legislation there are bound to be contradictions. Still a Congressman good at their job should be able to explain what parts of legislation they vote for or against they would have otherwise supported or opposed if it hadn't been included with legislation they don't support. It is complicated, in part to obfuscate and bury unpopular laws within popular ones or vice versa, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I think what you say is mostly true, but as an American I do wish the UK would drop the K part. I don't believe government and tax supported Kings and Queens have any place in the modern world. Fairy tales told to children sure, why not. But if you want to call yourself King, Queen or Princess or whatever, then go ahead, but don't prop them up with taxpayer money.
The alternative you suggest is that once the oil runs out that the rest of the UK will be providing Scotland with more money in government services than the Scots pay in taxes. That doesn't seem to be a viable or sustainable alternative either. Either way the Scots need a sustainable economy in Scotland and shouldn't be dependent on the taxpayers of England and Wales to prop them up. That isn't a plan. Sustainable economic and political unions are about mutual benefits not dependency.
You could argue the same thing for Detroit... if only they could devalue the Detroit national currency and print their way out of debt then they wouldn't have needed to go into default/bankruptcy and technically ruin their credit rating.
Or they could just settle on a budget that is actually sustainable and not have to borrow at a rate that is outpacing the growth in tax revenue.
A smooth transition isn't a "handout", it would be in the best interest of both sides. Regardless of the outcome they still have to live side by side on the same island and will be a major trading partner. Amicable divorces are much better than pointlessly bitter ones.
I think it is quite clearly scare mongering or worse, threatening. The UK government agreed to this vote and they should be making assurances that whichever the outcome that the UK government will do its best to facilitate a peaceful and mutually beneficial transition.
Two independent states can share a currency... the EU proves that currency unions are possible. And if the EU were to exclude Scotland, then that would be the first time the EU will have contracted instead of expanding which would undermine confidence in the EU itself just as it was regaining it. Certainly there will be costs to establishing and negotiating a transition, but to assume a worst case scenario and that people will act in a destructive way against their mutual interests out of some sort of royal spite is not helpful.
I think it would be fairly cynical of the English side to allow a vote on independence and then screw over Scotland as an 'I told you so'. The best thing for everyone would be to facilitate a peaceful and mutually beneficial transition. That means cooperating with the Bank of Scotland to keep the Pound if they want to and doing nothing to make EU membership difficult. This isn't some sort of armed rebellion. The UK agreed to this vote. If the remaining UK screws over Scotland out of regret for allowing independence, then it would hurt the UK just as much as it would Scotland.
The perfect example of this is the tax on dividends which should be exactly the same rate as other income, but it was argued that it was already being taxed as corporate profits so the rate was set lower. The perverse effect is that people that actually make a wage or salary would pay higher income tax rates compared to those who can shift their income to dividends.
It is hard to convince people they are better off knowing how much is really being taken from them.
But the worst things about indirect or obfuscated taxation are that it is harder to have an informed electorate when taxation is hidden so indirect taxes undermine Liberty and democratic systems and it is harder for even the most well informed to accurately judge whether the tax burden is equitable, progressive or regressive.
As far as I can tell the tax system is primarily responsible for the erosion of the middle-class in the US because it is a regressive burden on the middle-class more so than the very wealthy. But try convincing a wealthy person that the higher tax bracket they see and combined taxation is actually less of a tax burden on them than the middle-class. Most people just don't understand how insideous and distorting indirect taxation can be to all our perceptions.
When I say "corrupt" when referring to a body of government I usually mean systemically corrupt and not just the paper bag full of money under the table kind of corruption or the laundered campaign contributions or jobs for friends and family kind of corruption which corrupts individuals.
In the systemically corrupt sense the FCC itself is a corruption of a representative form of government in that it is a complete abdication of lawmaking authority by Congress and the President to a commission made up of people who have made big money in the industry they supposedly regulate and to which they undoubtedly expect to return to make big money especially when they are rewarded by the industry for the regulations they craft. So it is both systemically corrupt in that it is a corruption of lawmaking authority which should be held by Congress and the president and not delegated to an unelected commission, but it is also clearly individually corrupt with most of the commissioners deep in the pocket and beholden to the industry they regulate.
Nobody thinks that this law does anything to curtail mass surveillance. They just added some language to make it appear to restrict phone call record collection, but since everyone calls the phone company and even terrorists can order pizza or call any one of a million phone numbers that are common to everyone, then restricting the number of hops to anything more than one "hop" means they can still collect every single phone record. This law is about distraction and plausible deniability for Congress people.
Bingo. A change to the law gets the courts off the hook to declare mass surveilance unconstitutional. The current laws EXPIRE SOON, so any new law is a cynical attempt to extend mass surveillance. Anyone supporting a new Patriot Act extension now should be shamed publicly as an enemy of Liberty.
The fourth amendment doesn't need to be "extended" by laws. The fourth amendment is a limitation on what laws and government action are constitutional. The current and proposed mass surveillance laws are a blatant violation of the 4th amendment and so are the actions of the Obama administration.
Yes, at this point I have no illusions that CO2 emissions will be reduced by concerted government actions. Best chance is that technology will help reduce CO2 enough to mitigate the worst potential effects.
Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs.
The energy needs of a world with no more people could easily be covered by renewables.
Easily... meaning after another 50 to 100 years of large scale fossil fuel emissions? Because even for developed economies with plenty of resources it is looking like 20, 30 or even 40 years to get to 100% renewables. Even if you believe that that would be a good thing for the environment, which I think that really 100% renewables would be a bigger negative impact on the environment than keeping a large percentage of nuclear is. That still means that developing economies are going to have to also have to stay away from coal, oil and natural gas for their own economic development.
people don't understand until you tell them nuclear fuel is a million times more energy dense than chemical fuel.
Could have just left it at "people don't understand"... The PR problem is that nuclear is economically disruptive to the fossil fuel industry so there is a lot of money at stake in spreading fear uncertainty and doubt about nuclear. The industry doesn't really fear solar or wind, because it isn't a large scale or near term threat for fossil fuel dominance. Compared with even a single new nuclear power plant which can power a large part of an entire region with consistent electricity and combined with an affordable and economically viable electric car that combination could almost completely replace fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
Was just about to point out the dishonest spin in the teaser, but you took the words out of my mouth. I have been involved with issue mailings to people that have previously indicated interest in something and gotten far far less of a response. A 34% response indicates that they had a very very well targeted mailing and indicates that there are a lot of people that do in fact share the perspective. I still think there is a large majority for net neutrality and therefore the FCC which represents the interest of the public should clearly act in that direction.
Also, I have to add that given my more or less libertarian perspective I don't think the Koch brothers anti-regulation libertarian perspective is completely wrong. I just think in this case regulation has already been applied in a lopsided manner that benefited larger businesses, prevented competition and penalized consumers so there is a need to undo the damage caused by previous regulation in a thoughtful way and in this case that means applying different regulations including net neutrality and regulations that effectively promote local competition.
But if all else was equal with vibrant local competition for ISPs I would have been against net neutrality as a government overreach, but I think that largely as a result of regulatory capture that we now are faced with monopolies that are able to corrupt the free market and exert more than their fair share of control so that we need a well crafted net neutrality policy to counterbalance that.
But in my perfect world the FCC would be dissolved by Congress and a new government agency would be focused solely on licensing and regulating over the air spectrum to prevent interference. I see the problem with Comcast and Verizon as being issues of a broken free market and not strictly communications, where issues of local monopolies should be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission in a more vigorous and consistently anti-monopoly way.
What we have gained is smaller and smaller computing devices with more and more energy efficiency which allows us to go mobile and to also reduce costs on cloud infrastructure. Maybe it forced a step backwards in terms of application software compared to high powered desktops... but being able to put what would have been a fully spec'd computer less than a decade ago in your pocket and have it run for a day on batteries is something to find amazing and should not be lamented.
I'd say if we are looking at making the desktop more relevant again, then it has to be a worthwhile enough experience to overcome the trade off to be sitting at a desk. High resolution monitors, multi-monitor applications, touch screen high resolution monitors laid flat on a conference table. (not head-mounted displays because those should be hooked to mobile devices to avoid cords), these seem like opportunities for "desktop" or workstation class or fixed computing applications where the display or inputs won't just fit in your pocket or on your glasses. Otherwise mobile and cloud computing are where it is at.
I basically agree with you, but I think this is a case of the technology and experience of making extreme earth environments more habitable eventually being applicable to Mars when we are prosperous and have the robotic construction technology for it to make sense. If we can bring greater sustainable habitability to our oceans, deserts and Antarctica or even underground cities on Earth, then I think that would be a good starting point and proof of concept for the even more extreme environments on other planets. Another Moon-shot scenario where we go to Mars as some sort of competition at unsustainable expense won't lead to sustainable colonization. Reducing the cost of Earth based construction and mining with more practical automation would be a good way to develop the types of technology that are needed for colonization or asteroid mining. And being able to build and rebuild housing at lower cost would raise people's standard of living here at home.
I think that is an important point. Unmanned drones certainly can give additional capabilities at potentially lower costs. But the privacy consideration should be in what the police are allowed to do without a warrant regardless of whether it is a manned helicopter or an unmanned one or a person up on a hill or a tower that has a good vantage point. Restrictions such as not peering in through windows into a house or using different wavelengths of light to determine heat signatures in a house or using a laser/radar to ease-drop on the conversations of occupants of a house or building without a warrant or a bona fide emergency situation are all appropriate restrictions that should equally apply to all technology rather than single out any one particular technology. This could be a case where the more specific a law protecting privacy is, then the more loop holes for using other technology in the same way are created.
They just approved a 37% electricity rate increase here in Massachusetts... The utility companies will get their money until people can go off the grid completely: http://www.masslive.com/busine...
This is the most important point being lost in the arguments against Corporate "Inversions" and other ways profits made overseas are "stashed" overseas. The taxes that discourage bringing profits earned overseas back to the US are the problem. Let companies bring the money back to the US tax free and the capital will get invested here resulting in taxable wages and salaries that help grow the US economy. No, this tax free arrangement wouldn't work for individual income taxes because it would be an easy tax dodge for those getting income from outside the country and still actually residing in the US. But companies ARE different than individuals in that even a cursory audit would demonstrate where the sales and revenue were actually coming from. Large companies should be taxed where they are doing business regardless of where their headquarters are.
Much of the developing countries and China's pollution is a result of export focused industry. Exports that go to the US and other countries. Maybe the overall effects will eventually be positive if those developing countries can adopt cleaner technologies, but at this point it appears that many of the environmental efforts over the last 50 years.have just shifted the problems of pollution and habitat loss overseas. As if we just said to China, send us a bunch of batteries to power our society and we don't care how you charge them. Unless we go ahead and block imports, then the supply chain matters. I am not disagreeing with the assessment of complete jack-assery and hypocrisy of many Global leaders. But if we are going to solve the problem, then it can no longer be about shifting pollution to other countries.
Yes, unfortunately we have two political parties in the US who believe they represent their faction and not the people. They have made undermining the majority preferences of the people that live in their districts into something noble that they can sell to their supporters to raise money. Parties which were formed claiming to protect American values of Liberty and democracy now undermine our institutions.
Except for protecting and defending the constitutional rights enshrined in the constitution, a Congressman's ONLY job should be trying to understand what the majority of people in their district want and vote accordingly.
Sure Congressmen can and should lead on issues and argue for policies they believe in, but when it comes time to vote on legislation their own unbiased polling of their constituents should be what is the deciding factor. Instead we have politicians pandering to special interests based on their level of activism or whether they can raise money for them. With thousands of pages in many legislation there are bound to be contradictions. Still a Congressman good at their job should be able to explain what parts of legislation they vote for or against they would have otherwise supported or opposed if it hadn't been included with legislation they don't support. It is complicated, in part to obfuscate and bury unpopular laws within popular ones or vice versa, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I think what you say is mostly true, but as an American I do wish the UK would drop the K part. I don't believe government and tax supported Kings and Queens have any place in the modern world. Fairy tales told to children sure, why not. But if you want to call yourself King, Queen or Princess or whatever, then go ahead, but don't prop them up with taxpayer money.
The alternative you suggest is that once the oil runs out that the rest of the UK will be providing Scotland with more money in government services than the Scots pay in taxes. That doesn't seem to be a viable or sustainable alternative either. Either way the Scots need a sustainable economy in Scotland and shouldn't be dependent on the taxpayers of England and Wales to prop them up. That isn't a plan. Sustainable economic and political unions are about mutual benefits not dependency.
You could argue the same thing for Detroit... if only they could devalue the Detroit national currency and print their way out of debt then they wouldn't have needed to go into default/bankruptcy and technically ruin their credit rating.
Or they could just settle on a budget that is actually sustainable and not have to borrow at a rate that is outpacing the growth in tax revenue.
A smooth transition isn't a "handout", it would be in the best interest of both sides. Regardless of the outcome they still have to live side by side on the same island and will be a major trading partner. Amicable divorces are much better than pointlessly bitter ones.
I think it is quite clearly scare mongering or worse, threatening. The UK government agreed to this vote and they should be making assurances that whichever the outcome that the UK government will do its best to facilitate a peaceful and mutually beneficial transition. Two independent states can share a currency... the EU proves that currency unions are possible. And if the EU were to exclude Scotland, then that would be the first time the EU will have contracted instead of expanding which would undermine confidence in the EU itself just as it was regaining it. Certainly there will be costs to establishing and negotiating a transition, but to assume a worst case scenario and that people will act in a destructive way against their mutual interests out of some sort of royal spite is not helpful.
I think it would be fairly cynical of the English side to allow a vote on independence and then screw over Scotland as an 'I told you so'. The best thing for everyone would be to facilitate a peaceful and mutually beneficial transition. That means cooperating with the Bank of Scotland to keep the Pound if they want to and doing nothing to make EU membership difficult. This isn't some sort of armed rebellion. The UK agreed to this vote. If the remaining UK screws over Scotland out of regret for allowing independence, then it would hurt the UK just as much as it would Scotland.
Or 10% or 0%. The most equitable and progressive tax is the tax on individual incomes. Corporate taxes are always a shell game.
The perfect example of this is the tax on dividends which should be exactly the same rate as other income, but it was argued that it was already being taxed as corporate profits so the rate was set lower. The perverse effect is that people that actually make a wage or salary would pay higher income tax rates compared to those who can shift their income to dividends.
It is hard to convince people they are better off knowing how much is really being taken from them. But the worst things about indirect or obfuscated taxation are that it is harder to have an informed electorate when taxation is hidden so indirect taxes undermine Liberty and democratic systems and it is harder for even the most well informed to accurately judge whether the tax burden is equitable, progressive or regressive. As far as I can tell the tax system is primarily responsible for the erosion of the middle-class in the US because it is a regressive burden on the middle-class more so than the very wealthy. But try convincing a wealthy person that the higher tax bracket they see and combined taxation is actually less of a tax burden on them than the middle-class. Most people just don't understand how insideous and distorting indirect taxation can be to all our perceptions.
When I say "corrupt" when referring to a body of government I usually mean systemically corrupt and not just the paper bag full of money under the table kind of corruption or the laundered campaign contributions or jobs for friends and family kind of corruption which corrupts individuals.
In the systemically corrupt sense the FCC itself is a corruption of a representative form of government in that it is a complete abdication of lawmaking authority by Congress and the President to a commission made up of people who have made big money in the industry they supposedly regulate and to which they undoubtedly expect to return to make big money especially when they are rewarded by the industry for the regulations they craft. So it is both systemically corrupt in that it is a corruption of lawmaking authority which should be held by Congress and the president and not delegated to an unelected commission, but it is also clearly individually corrupt with most of the commissioners deep in the pocket and beholden to the industry they regulate.
I think it is fair to say that the FCC is one of the most corrupt institutions in the US government.
Nobody thinks that this law does anything to curtail mass surveillance. They just added some language to make it appear to restrict phone call record collection, but since everyone calls the phone company and even terrorists can order pizza or call any one of a million phone numbers that are common to everyone, then restricting the number of hops to anything more than one "hop" means they can still collect every single phone record. This law is about distraction and plausible deniability for Congress people.
Bingo. A change to the law gets the courts off the hook to declare mass surveilance unconstitutional. The current laws EXPIRE SOON, so any new law is a cynical attempt to extend mass surveillance. Anyone supporting a new Patriot Act extension now should be shamed publicly as an enemy of Liberty.
The fourth amendment doesn't need to be "extended" by laws. The fourth amendment is a limitation on what laws and government action are constitutional. The current and proposed mass surveillance laws are a blatant violation of the 4th amendment and so are the actions of the Obama administration.
Yes, at this point I have no illusions that CO2 emissions will be reduced by concerted government actions. Best chance is that technology will help reduce CO2 enough to mitigate the worst potential effects.
Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs.
The energy needs of a world with no more people could easily be covered by renewables.
Easily... meaning after another 50 to 100 years of large scale fossil fuel emissions? Because even for developed economies with plenty of resources it is looking like 20, 30 or even 40 years to get to 100% renewables. Even if you believe that that would be a good thing for the environment, which I think that really 100% renewables would be a bigger negative impact on the environment than keeping a large percentage of nuclear is. That still means that developing economies are going to have to also have to stay away from coal, oil and natural gas for their own economic development.
people don't understand until you tell them nuclear fuel is a million times more energy dense than chemical fuel.
Could have just left it at "people don't understand"... The PR problem is that nuclear is economically disruptive to the fossil fuel industry so there is a lot of money at stake in spreading fear uncertainty and doubt about nuclear. The industry doesn't really fear solar or wind, because it isn't a large scale or near term threat for fossil fuel dominance. Compared with even a single new nuclear power plant which can power a large part of an entire region with consistent electricity and combined with an affordable and economically viable electric car that combination could almost completely replace fossil fuels.