I think it has been mentioned in a few other comments, but the threat isn't of "collapse" it is that the Internet use and functionality will not be able to grow as we would all like it to. I think there is plenty of information, communication and interaction that is not as good as it could be on the Internet. Video, gaming, some types of information could possibly be easier to find the "threat" is that the Internet will stagnate, like the French Minitel system did. It was still useful and popular long after the Internet arrived, but its limited nature constrained its growth. In a similar way I think the Internet has found some natural impediments to growth which need to be looked at soon or else we risk stagnation and lost opportunity. The Internet will not collapse under its own weight, just slow in growth.
"And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places."
It should also be considered a form trespass and I think could and should be prosecuted.
Which does not mean that the device itself should be outlawed... outlaw actions, not existence.
the right thing to do is to give electoral votes along the congressional district lines on which they are already based, with the two votes that each state gets because of the Senate awarded based on the statewide results. This is what was intended and makes the most sense.
"Any idiot can lock down windows. It takes someone with more intelligence to actually allow the useful while blocking the harmful. As long as the IT department is large/trained well enough for the number of seats it really shouldn't be a problem."
How many company's take decide to lock down their computers and networks before realizing the expense of doing so? As you say it is easy (and cheap) to make a system secure, all you need to do is lock the door. It is much more difficult and expensive to introduce a system which can manage change. I think all too many times IT managers are too willing to let upper level management make the mistake of mandating the securing of systems, without realizing the IT costs that will be incurred.
Ten people doing the job of one person with communication, transportation and time delays might cost less but it is not good economics. This current so called "trend" is about people making a quick buck by taking advantage of an artificial imbalance in currency exchange rates. Problem is that the value of the US dollar is being artificially inflated to support energy costs. This is not sustainable. So, no need to worry about jobs that are continuously going overseas. More to worry about greater economic instability as a result of politicians trying to artificially maintain economic stability.
"but to interpret a law that merely says campaigns, which are already regulated on the radio and TV, should be regulated on the Internet as well, as a law regulating free speech on the Internet, is overreaction."
"campaigns" are just anyone advocating the election or unelection of specific individuals. So, it is that the content of one's speech defines what is being regulated. Introducing some artificial abstractions merely obfuscate the censorship, it does not make it any less so. I am reacting now because I intend to run for office
Your own reference shows my point, from the article:
"I would state that several of your client's ads do seem to step right up to the dividing line between an advocacy group and a political action committee," Bailey wrote to CPR lawyer Peter White. "It is possible that future literature in the same vein may in fact step over such a line, bringing your client to the other side. To date, however, such does not appear to be the case."
How is this implicit threat not a threat to democracy, free speech and freedom itself? If I want to advocate the election of someone, I have a right to do so. If I want to put a sign on my front lawn, I shouldn't have to register as a PAC. If I put up a web page, I shouldn't have to register as a PAC. If I put an ad in the paper, I should not have to register as a PAC. If I put a bumper sticker on my car, I should not have to register as a PAC. Regulations regarding political advertising over public airwaves should be FCC regulation of content only applicatble to license holders. There should be no registration of PACs or Campaigns. You should either be on the ballot or not. Heck I think we should ditch the Australian ballot altogether and go back to having people actually vote for whom they want instead of being manipulated like sheep to the slaughter by the party's monopoly on power.
"What is even more telling is that this article on campaign finance reform was misinterpreted as an attack on free speech."
Right, you can say all you want as long as you don't spend any money to deliver the message, I think I can see how people might "misinterpret" the intention of campaign "finance reform".
Does anyone remember that guy that set up a web page on his server that was either pro or anti someone and the FEC went after him considering the cost of the computer and internet connection were over some threshold of spending that required him to register as a PAC. Register? If I buy a printing press and start printing leaflets, suddenly I need to pre register because of the content of my speech or face penalties or prison. Tell me how this isn't a prior restraint on the content of my speech? I dare ya.
Campaign finance "reform" and the restricitive regulations that come with it will only benefit entrenched politicians and interests. If you believe otherwise you are very naive.
CopyRight laws should be similar to patent law. If you invent something but never patent it (ie keep it secret), then you do not get patent protections. If you publish something but make it physically uncopyable, then you should receive fewer legal protections.
I haven't read it, but does the report also consider those PCs that came with Windows initially, but will have Linux installed afterwards? That's what I have done the last few times with my Dell Dimension Desktops and it still seems to be the easiest or cheapest option for getting a Linux PC most of the time.
To only estimate movement to one side and not the reverse would fail the test of truthfullness, or at least thouroughness.
"My prediction: If any private company gets within sniffing distance of sending people to Mars, the environmentalists and scientists will go hand-in-hand screaming about contaminating the native environment."
Then we'll just have to grind up the "environmentalists" for martian fertilizer.
"Considering SpaceShipOne rings in at around $20 mil US, and most people would say that they operate pretty efficiently and without any ridiculous overhead, I'd hate to see what 10 mil euros will buy when it comes to building a Mars ship."
By then, 10 million euros will buy you 100 million us dollars, so they could just use cheap american labor and materials.
"Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"? That seems a little naive."
It stands to reason that if we were to leave them alone then they would leave us alone. Terrorist actions are not the result of jealousy as has often been promulgated. Rather it is a result of the US being deeply involved in propping up unpopular regimes in that region since WWII, if we were to stop, then I think it would be very likely that we would not find ourselves the target of attack.
Problem being that any destabilization of the economies in the area could lead to serious economic instability within the US. Clearly combatants on all sides would threaten oil supplies precisely so that the United States has no other choice but to remain engaged.
We are being played as much as we are players. Withdrawal should be the objective, but first things first. We need to work towards regaining economic independence, so that we may regain our nations political independence. Or else, we really will need to reinvent the United States on a global scale to encompass the new Global economic reality, to do otherwise is to risk continuing to be held hostage by rogue states and despots.
Seems that the philosophy of liberty is an agreeable basis of government for most people, but once you start realizing the implications of moving more of the economy over to free market system, based upon individual free will, then people start getting nervous about all the easy money government jobs which might be lost. This is really the underlying problem for libertarianism, getting past the fear that Libertarians just want to throw a lot of people out their jobs or eliminate jobs that are based upon government contracts. Can you spell out how you would go about a reorganization of the executive and how you would make a reasonable transition away from some government programs so as to mitigate the strain on individuals and the economy as a whole?
Does this prevent sending email without a domain? such as sending from user@ip.address. Is that even possible now? I would hope that we would retain an ability to send (and have received) email via smtp from an IP address directly.
Either way, the point of anti spam measures should be just to make sure that the sender identifies themselves correctly and not just to create barriers which raise the cost of email and rely upon centralization of trusted resources.
Domain servers are trusted sources of information about name to IP mappings. If a dns lookup for that domain says that the email being received is from that server on that domain, then let the message through, otherwise reject it. This would seem to stop domain spoofing and although you can spoof a return address in snail mail, this doesn't seem to be a firm requirement with email. Still if I want to send email from a particular ip address without using domain names that should be valid, so this would require that no validation against dns be made, but doesn't the receiving email server have to negotiate a tcp connection with the originating computer, so that would mean that the receiving email server would "know" if the sending server really was at the same address that the email header said it was at and could validate user@ip.address just as easily as user@mailserver.domain.
Really the goal should not be to prevent the possibility of people contacting you, but to only accept messages to which you can respond back.
In private school I learned that each of us has the capacity to do evil. So by that understanding, we are all bad seeds, or more correctly have bad seeds within us. This is reason led by faith and faith born of reason.
Private school allowed me to deeply explore the relationship between faith and reason in a constructive dialog amongst believers and non-believers alike. We learned that false gods did not always have proper names and that your worship of them could take many forms and were often the result of incorrect values. Reason can take you only so far and is rarely built upon solid ground.
Believing that there are just bad people that are born that way is a mistake that goes beyond the question of dealing with a disruptive student.
"What we have to admit as a society is that some kids ARE bad seeds. The #1 priority is making sure they don't ruin it for the rest of the kids trying to learn. One "bad seed" can bring a class of 20 to a complete stand still."
Slashdot Mirror
I think it has been mentioned in a few other comments, but the threat isn't of "collapse" it is that the Internet use and functionality will not be able to grow as we would all like it to. I think there is plenty of information, communication and interaction that is not as good as it could be on the Internet. Video, gaming, some types of information could possibly be easier to find the "threat" is that the Internet will stagnate, like the French Minitel system did. It was still useful and popular long after the Internet arrived, but its limited nature constrained its growth. In a similar way I think the Internet has found some natural impediments to growth which need to be looked at soon or else we risk stagnation and lost opportunity. The Internet will not collapse under its own weight, just slow in growth.
"And it's the height of arrogance and intellectual elitism to think that it's any of your business to turn off TVs that don't belong to you, in public or private places."
It should also be considered a form trespass and I think could and should be prosecuted.
Which does not mean that the device itself should be outlawed... outlaw actions, not existence.
the right thing to do is to give electoral votes along the congressional district lines on which they are already based, with the two votes that each state gets because of the Senate awarded based on the statewide results. This is what was intended and makes the most sense.
"Any idiot can lock down windows. It takes someone with more intelligence to actually allow the useful while blocking the harmful. As long as the IT department is large/trained well enough for the number of seats it really shouldn't be a problem."
How many company's take decide to lock down their computers and networks before realizing the expense of doing so? As you say it is easy (and cheap) to make a system secure, all you need to do is lock the door. It is much more difficult and expensive to introduce a system which can manage change. I think all too many times IT managers are too willing to let upper level management make the mistake of mandating the securing of systems, without realizing the IT costs that will be incurred.
Ten people doing the job of one person with communication, transportation and time delays might cost less but it is not good economics. This current so called "trend" is about people making a quick buck by taking advantage of an artificial imbalance in currency exchange rates. Problem is that the value of the US dollar is being artificially inflated to support energy costs. This is not sustainable. So, no need to worry about jobs that are continuously going overseas. More to worry about greater economic instability as a result of politicians trying to artificially maintain economic stability.
"but to interpret a law that merely says campaigns, which are already regulated on the radio and TV, should be regulated on the Internet as well, as a law regulating free speech on the Internet, is overreaction."
"campaigns" are just anyone advocating the election or unelection of specific individuals. So, it is that the content of one's speech defines what is being regulated. Introducing some artificial abstractions merely obfuscate the censorship, it does not make it any less so. I am reacting now because I intend to run for office
Your own reference shows my point, from the article:
"I would state that several of your client's ads do seem to step right up to the dividing line between an advocacy group and a political action committee," Bailey wrote to CPR lawyer Peter White. "It is possible that future literature in the same vein may in fact step over such a line, bringing your client to the other side. To date, however, such does not appear to be the case."
How is this implicit threat not a threat to democracy, free speech and freedom itself? If I want to advocate the election of someone, I have a right to do so. If I want to put a sign on my front lawn, I shouldn't have to register as a PAC. If I put up a web page, I shouldn't have to register as a PAC. If I put an ad in the paper, I should not have to register as a PAC. If I put a bumper sticker on my car, I should not have to register as a PAC. Regulations regarding political advertising over public airwaves should be FCC regulation of content only applicatble to license holders. There should be no registration of PACs or Campaigns. You should either be on the ballot or not. Heck I think we should ditch the Australian ballot altogether and go back to having people actually vote for whom they want instead of being manipulated like sheep to the slaughter by the party's monopoly on power.
And by the way, Vote Badnarik!
"What is even more telling is that this article on campaign finance reform was misinterpreted as an attack on free speech."
Right, you can say all you want as long as you don't spend any money to deliver the message, I think I can see how people might "misinterpret" the intention of campaign "finance reform".
Does anyone remember that guy that set up a web page on his server that was either pro or anti someone and the FEC went after him considering the cost of the computer and internet connection were over some threshold of spending that required him to register as a PAC. Register? If I buy a printing press and start printing leaflets, suddenly I need to pre register because of the content of my speech or face penalties or prison. Tell me how this isn't a prior restraint on the content of my speech? I dare ya.
Campaign finance "reform" and the restricitive regulations that come with it will only benefit entrenched politicians and interests. If you believe otherwise you are very naive.
CopyRight laws should be similar to patent law. If you invent something but never patent it (ie keep it secret), then you do not get patent protections. If you publish something but make it physically uncopyable, then you should receive fewer legal protections.
"You see, as Ayn Rand points out, the free market always gives the best solution, and monopolies are a myth."
Just two things... Sustained monopolies are not a result of a free market and we do not have a free market.
"trusting technology to solve all problems is a problem" ... which I'm sure technology can fix.
" Exactly. The fact that the 9/11 hijackers had drivers licenses in the first place is a symptom, not the problem."
They weren't hijakers before they got the licenses only after.
I haven't read it, but does the report also consider those PCs that came with Windows initially, but will have Linux installed afterwards? That's what I have done the last few times with my Dell Dimension Desktops and it still seems to be the easiest or cheapest option for getting a Linux PC most of the time.
To only estimate movement to one side and not the reverse would fail the test of truthfullness, or at least thouroughness.
How about another question:
Do you feel the office of president and the executive branch has grown too powerful?
"My prediction: If any private company gets within sniffing distance of sending people to Mars, the environmentalists and scientists will go hand-in-hand screaming about contaminating the native environment."
Then we'll just have to grind up the "environmentalists" for martian fertilizer.
"Considering SpaceShipOne rings in at around $20 mil US, and most people would say that they operate pretty efficiently and without any ridiculous overhead, I'd hate to see what 10 mil euros will buy when it comes to building a Mars ship."
By then, 10 million euros will buy you 100 million us dollars, so they could just use cheap american labor and materials.
As long as you leave 4D travel to me, that's all that matters.
yes, perhaps you are right. What we need is to take a step back and get back to fundamentals... flying horse and buggy is the future!
"Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"? That seems a little naive."
It stands to reason that if we were to leave them alone then they would leave us alone. Terrorist actions are not the result of jealousy as has often been promulgated. Rather it is a result of the US being deeply involved in propping up unpopular regimes in that region since WWII, if we were to stop, then I think it would be very likely that we would not find ourselves the target of attack.
Problem being that any destabilization of the economies in the area could lead to serious economic instability within the US. Clearly combatants on all sides would threaten oil supplies precisely so that the United States has no other choice but to remain engaged.
We are being played as much as we are players. Withdrawal should be the objective, but first things first. We need to work towards regaining economic independence, so that we may regain our nations political independence. Or else, we really will need to reinvent the United States on a global scale to encompass the new Global economic reality, to do otherwise is to risk continuing to be held hostage by rogue states and despots.
Seems that the philosophy of liberty is an agreeable basis of government for most people, but once you start realizing the implications of moving more of the economy over to free market system, based upon individual free will, then people start getting nervous about all the easy money government jobs which might be lost. This is really the underlying problem for libertarianism, getting past the fear that Libertarians just want to throw a lot of people out their jobs or eliminate jobs that are based upon government contracts. Can you spell out how you would go about a reorganization of the executive and how you would make a reasonable transition away from some government programs so as to mitigate the strain on individuals and the economy as a whole?
Does this prevent sending email without a domain? such as sending from user@ip.address. Is that even possible now? I would hope that we would retain an ability to send (and have received) email via smtp from an IP address directly.
Either way, the point of anti spam measures should be just to make sure that the sender identifies themselves correctly and not just to create barriers which raise the cost of email and rely upon centralization of trusted resources.
Domain servers are trusted sources of information about name to IP mappings. If a dns lookup for that domain says that the email being received is from that server on that domain, then let the message through, otherwise reject it. This would seem to stop domain spoofing and although you can spoof a return address in snail mail, this doesn't seem to be a firm requirement with email. Still if I want to send email from a particular ip address without using domain names that should be valid, so this would require that no validation against dns be made, but doesn't the receiving email server have to negotiate a tcp connection with the originating computer, so that would mean that the receiving email server would "know" if the sending server really was at the same address that the email header said it was at and could validate user@ip.address just as easily as user@mailserver.domain.
Really the goal should not be to prevent the possibility of people contacting you, but to only accept messages to which you can respond back.
In private school I learned that each of us has the capacity to do evil. So by that understanding, we are all bad seeds, or more correctly have bad seeds within us. This is reason led by faith and faith born of reason.
Private school allowed me to deeply explore the relationship between faith and reason in a constructive dialog amongst believers and non-believers alike. We learned that false gods did not always have proper names and that your worship of them could take many forms and were often the result of incorrect values. Reason can take you only so far and is rarely built upon solid ground.
Believing that there are just bad people that are born that way is a mistake that goes beyond the question of dealing with a disruptive student.
"What we have to admit as a society is that some kids ARE bad seeds. The #1 priority is making sure they don't ruin it for the rest of the kids trying to learn. One "bad seed" can bring a class of 20 to a complete stand still."
I bet you learned that in public school.
" So, then just don't go on the airplane. Being a planeaholic is no excuse ;-)."
Right to travel is a bit more fundamental than your right to buy a six pack.
"Well that would certainly get the illiterates off the hook in all kinds of situations.... :-)"
With laws that cannot be read we are all illiterates.