Does the New York Times analysis include the fact that a lot of their coverage is basically an "in kind" contribution to the guys they favor? This is the problem with Lawrence Lessig. Him and the rest of the anti-Citizens United crew are thinking that without political advertising, the only things the people will hear is what the professional media tells them. And they're betting that the media will continue to act on behalf of the candidates Lessig and the rest support. This story, which takes the activists at their word instead of what they are transparently doing, is the kind of story Team Lessig is counting on.
Right... Except that you can get a different city government that doesn't waste money on mass transit in situations where it doesn't work by voting for different people.
So, government that provides you with services you like is good government and government that provides other people with things they like is bad government that wastes money.
Of course it is? The point of voting is that you can put people in power whose priorities mirror yours. At the municipal level especially, where most people will largely have the same concerns, the whole "consent of the governed" thing is implied by the fact that most people voted for the people in power, and that they can revoke that consent in the next election. (By contrast, at the Federal level, the people of Illinois can have different concerns than the people in Pennsylvania, so the Senators from those respective states can pursue drastically different courses of action and both be representing the will of their constituents.)
"The will of the government" is a dangerous thing. Government employees deserve the same vote that everyone else gets. You seem to be arguing that something can be good because "the government" is in favor of it, even if the people the government represents oppose it. That's the way to dictatorship.
Right... Except that you can get a different city government that doesn't waste money on mass transit in situations where it doesn't work by voting for different people.
However, there is no single test. People modify vehicles, from passenger vehicles designed for street use to putting electric motors on skateboards, and we test if they are safe.
I don't understand this part at all. If you have different classifications, and every vehicle has to past the test for their classification (and it's obvious how to figure out what classification your vehicle belongs in) you should publish ALL the tests. If your real goal is to allow manufacturers to pass the certification by making safe vehicles, you should publish your internal test procedures. If you don't do so, people will wonder whether your real goal is to harass manufacturers you don't like for whatever reason.
That's what they SAY the objectives are. But then when the rubber meets the road, it's all about hassling companies who don't hire "enough" minorities. Liberals in Congress are trying to shake Apple down for this information EXPLICITLY SO they can hassle Apple over it.
He's never missed an episode of ESPN sportcenter but never watched the nightly news.
For all their other failings, at least ESPN covers the fact that Cuban athletes defect to countries that are not Communist hellholes. The actual news is actually less trustworthy on the issue of "Who is Fidel Castro?"
It's a lot like Health and Safety. It gets a bad name because idiots abuse it, but if you check the actual rules and objectives they are all perfectly sane, sensible and not in the least bit objectionable (unless you enjoy occupational injury).
Except that unlike with health and safety regulations, the objective is to force people and businesses to hire members of the favored class instead of members of the disfavored class, simply by virtue of what class they are in rather than their actual qualifications. (Note that qualified members of favored classes aren't having this problem.) Perfectly objectionable, neither sane nor sensible.
All other modern leaders who were good for their respective nations are considered as monsters by other nations. Ahmadinejad and Hitler come to mind.
Both of those guys were horrible for their own people. Hitler eventually led Germany to ruin, and Iran spent most of Ahmadinejad's rule isolated on the international stage.
By contrast, I don't think Reagan or Bill Clinton are considered to be "monsters" internationally by anyone other than a group of fringe lunatics. (I'd also posit that both men are more well looked upon by the world at large than by citizens of their own country... ditto Margret Thatcher, actually.)
My point is that it's ridiculous for a standards agency to not publish the standard so as to defeat "attempts to cheat the test." Not having standardized rules understood by all the players allows the standards agency to attack whoever they don't like.
Sometimes, wise decision makers are better then well-defined laws.
Of course, the problem with government by unwritten rule is that the "wise decision makers" will then use that rule to punish their enemies simply for being their enemies.
Look at the IRS, which targeted people and groups they didn't like for harassment. That's allegedly illegal, but nobody was ever punished for it because "wise decision makers" didn't think it was necessary.
Look at the Secret Service, who did not like that a member of Congress was investigating them, so they leaked that a decade earlier, he applied for a job with them and they decided not to hire him. Allegedly illegal, but no one will be punished for that because the "wise decision makers" don't think it's necessary.
To turn it back to the automotive world, the "wise decision makers" in government decided to PLAY UP an unintended acceleration issue in Toyotas and COVER UP a similar bug in GM cars because the government owned GM at the time.
Part of the reason we have written laws is that they're supposed to protect us from government by the whims of "wise decision makers."
If most of the rich people that Trump knows are in the entertainment field, I can see why he feels that way.
I'm fairly confident Donald Trump understands that most "rich" people have their money tied up in non-liquid assets because Trump himself owns like $10 billion in real estate.
Instead of the more obvious option, the Patriots stole the encryption codes and purposely overpowered the real signal with their own.
Stealing the encryption key isn't necessary. "League officials" in a room at Gillette Stadium are monitoring the transmissions anyway (on equipment set up by the Patriots.) The radio broadcast of the game could easily have been fed into the coach's feed at that point.
Probably the closest they ever got was with the iPod in the MP3 player market and even there they never achieved monopoly power
I'm not sure what your definition of monopoly is, but by the real definition, Apple used vendor lock in to secure a monopoly in the sale of digital music and standalone players by preventing synchronization between iTunes and competing players, or between iPods and competing synchronization software. They then coerced accessory manufacturers to only support iPods, rather than competing players.
They were an abusive monopoly in exactly the same way Microsoft is accused of being.
As you correctly note, the hardware market they monopolized no longer exists in a meaningful way. And although iTunes is still an anti-competitive pain in the ass, there are other meaningful music stores now that prevent iTunes from being a monopoly.
Mr. McAfee, obviously your field of expertise is Information Security. What are the one or two biggest problems facing the Federal government from an IT perspective? How would you solve these problems?
1. If we're talking about a proposed law, this is a hint to how likely it is that the law will be enacted pass. (If you're familiar with parlimentary systems, think about the difference between a proposal by the real Minister of Whatever and the Shadow Minister of Whatever.)
2. If you live in the person's district, and you like the kind of things they propose, you should remember to vote for them in the next election. (Alternatively, if you dislike the kind of scandals they get in, you should remember not to vote for them.)
3. Yes, most elected Republicans agree on most things. Most elected Democrats agree on most things. The fact that Lee's bill is coming to the floor means that it has support from the elected officials in his party. The next Republican to run in a Senate election a given American voter base an opportunity to vote for would probably vote for this bill if they had the chance, whether that candidate is an incumbent or not. (I'm not sure if the bill has Democrat support, but if it does, the next Democrat would vote for it if they had the chance and if it doesn't they'd vote against it.)
4. By calling the comment "Name that Party," I'm criticizing outlets (of which there are plenty) that tend to hide or help party affiliations in a way that helps the Democrats. Say you have a story about a mid level or low level politician getting caught doing something bad. If the politician is a Democrat, they'll probably hide the party affiliation and if the politician is a Republican, they'll emphasize it. This leads to the impression that Republicans are invariably corrupt. Say the politician did something good or popular, like Lee did in this case (at least to the Slashdot* audience.) If the politician is a Democrat, they'll emphasize the label and if the politician is a Republican, they'll hide it, which leads to the impression that only Democrats have good and popular ideas.
But anyway, all this is standard practice in the United States. If you're not an American, why do you care how American publications cover American politics. Since you can't vote for or against Lee and his law isn't going to come to pass in your country, why would you bother reading this thread in the first place?
*Slashdot plays this game, but unlike most outlets it's not so much that they're trying to create an impression as much as that the editing is always incompetent anyway.
If Slashdot was a reputable source of news, they'd include the party and district (or state, when appropriate... as a Senator, Lee's district is all of Utah) every time they mention an elected official.
I think it's safe to say that we all, as citizens, give state money, or what you euphemistically call "a citizen's tax money" to someone we hate. For me, James Inhofe, for you probably someone like Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer.
We're not paying Sanders, Boxer, or Inhofe to speak. We're paying them to do a job, which is different. All three are doing the job of United States Senator very well. (That's a low bar to cross.)
Meanwhile, under the current system, if a citizen supports a candidate, they can, but are not obliged to, cut a check to the candidate directly. This way, nobody has to give money to someone they hate.
Right, but not complete. Under the current system not only can a Citizen cut a check to a candidate they support, but a non-citizen legal entity (a SuperPAC) can cut a check to a candidate
Well, since PACs and other groups get their money from citizens cutting checks to them in the first place, it's the same thing.
[Super PACs make contributions] with relaxed rule as to the amount and poor accountability as to influence.
Restrictions on amounts that citizens can contribute (on their own or collectively) are a restriction on free speech anyway. We should be opposed to them.
The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.
That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things.
Whether you agree with Lessig on campaign finance restrictions being more important than free speech or not, I'm paraphrasing his group's views fairly. If you disagree, give me an alternative interpretation of his views. Don't just say "Fox News" like that means anything.
We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways...
Here in the United States, we don't place NEARLY as many restrictions on speech as most people assume... or as some would like. Other countries don't have the kind of freedoms we enjoy, and so enact tyrannical restrictions on speech. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Also, governments who enact these restrictions are doing the whole "assume buisnesses are evil and government and so-called public interest groups are righteous" thing. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that part from you, Lessig, or those governments.
It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.
If part of your plan is "Repeal part of the First Amendment," that should be your first hint that it's a bad plan.
What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance:
3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit.
4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign.
The horrible parts of your plan are steps 3 and 4, and step 6, which you didn't mention.
Your Step 3 gives people taxpayer money. People aren't entitled to "government money" (which in reality, BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS) so they can espouse crackpot views. If you want to run for President, the only people whose money you are entitled to are the people who you can convince that you and your views are important enough to fund. The government shouldn't be paying anyone to speak.
Step 4 is just plain wrong. The government can't (and shouldn't) be allowed to restrict the amount of speech made by an entity, any more than they could prevent a newspaper from printing two editions a day or say that religious services are restricted to an hour long and start throwing pastors in jail if their sermons are too long.
Step 6, which you don't address, concerns the professional media. Under your plan, due to the advertising restrictions you're placing, most people will learn most of their information from the news media. (This is explicitly part of Lessig's May Day plan.) News media coverage is itself a form of advertising, which is left untouched under your and Lessig's plan. If the media decides that they support candidate A versus candidate B, and they slant the news that way, there will be no one to oppose them because your and Lessig's advertising restrictions are keeping them out of the field. (Part of Lessig's bet is that the media will continue to collaborate to pick candidates that he supports.)
You're a Sanders supporter, judging by your signature line. Do you think he's being treated fairly by the media?
I don't. Under the ridiculous campaign finance restrictions that Lessig wants, nobody whose ideas deviate from the media's will be able to inform voters about anything at all. (After all, Lessig exempts the media from his plan.) Sanders's supporters deviate to the media's left, while the people I support deviate to their right.
Under Lessig's plan, the media cabal would pick every candidate for every office forever.
The idea behind May Day is the international solidarity of workers after an event that happened on May 1st. Other than that they were both pushed for by labor unions, the Labor Day celebrated in the United States has nothing to do with it. Which is why it's not in May.
I'm not sure where you want to put the murderers and rapists if not prison, but that's different than paying someone to say stupid and hateful things. Under non-tyrannical governments, you don't have to pay someone to say stupid and hateful things... and you get to pick what's stupid and hateful, and thus, from whom you will withhold those funds.
What does this solution provide that checksums do not? If you trust Debian's repositories, and they publish checksums and build sizes, you can independently verify that the package you downloaded is the one they published. As an additional level of security, they can use signed binaries, where they encrypt the binaries with a private key, and then, if you trust Debian's repositories, you decrypt their binaries with their public key before you install them. IIRC, Debian already uses both of these.
I mean, clearly the Debian guys have thought of this, so what am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
Does the New York Times analysis include the fact that a lot of their coverage is basically an "in kind" contribution to the guys they favor? This is the problem with Lawrence Lessig. Him and the rest of the anti-Citizens United crew are thinking that without political advertising, the only things the people will hear is what the professional media tells them. And they're betting that the media will continue to act on behalf of the candidates Lessig and the rest support. This story, which takes the activists at their word instead of what they are transparently doing, is the kind of story Team Lessig is counting on.
So, government that provides you with services you like is good government and government that provides other people with things they like is bad government that wastes money.
Of course it is? The point of voting is that you can put people in power whose priorities mirror yours. At the municipal level especially, where most people will largely have the same concerns, the whole "consent of the governed" thing is implied by the fact that most people voted for the people in power, and that they can revoke that consent in the next election. (By contrast, at the Federal level, the people of Illinois can have different concerns than the people in Pennsylvania, so the Senators from those respective states can pursue drastically different courses of action and both be representing the will of their constituents.)
"The will of the government" is a dangerous thing. Government employees deserve the same vote that everyone else gets. You seem to be arguing that something can be good because "the government" is in favor of it, even if the people the government represents oppose it. That's the way to dictatorship.
Right... Except that you can get a different city government that doesn't waste money on mass transit in situations where it doesn't work by voting for different people.
However, there is no single test. People modify vehicles, from passenger vehicles designed for street use to putting electric motors on skateboards, and we test if they are safe.
I don't understand this part at all. If you have different classifications, and every vehicle has to past the test for their classification (and it's obvious how to figure out what classification your vehicle belongs in) you should publish ALL the tests. If your real goal is to allow manufacturers to pass the certification by making safe vehicles, you should publish your internal test procedures. If you don't do so, people will wonder whether your real goal is to harass manufacturers you don't like for whatever reason.
That's what they SAY the objectives are. But then when the rubber meets the road, it's all about hassling companies who don't hire "enough" minorities. Liberals in Congress are trying to shake Apple down for this information EXPLICITLY SO they can hassle Apple over it.
He's never missed an episode of ESPN sportcenter but never watched the nightly news.
For all their other failings, at least ESPN covers the fact that Cuban athletes defect to countries that are not Communist hellholes. The actual news is actually less trustworthy on the issue of "Who is Fidel Castro?"
It's a lot like Health and Safety. It gets a bad name because idiots abuse it, but if you check the actual rules and objectives they are all perfectly sane, sensible and not in the least bit objectionable (unless you enjoy occupational injury).
Except that unlike with health and safety regulations, the objective is to force people and businesses to hire members of the favored class instead of members of the disfavored class, simply by virtue of what class they are in rather than their actual qualifications. (Note that qualified members of favored classes aren't having this problem.) Perfectly objectionable, neither sane nor sensible.
All other modern leaders who were good for their respective nations are considered as monsters by other nations. Ahmadinejad and Hitler come to mind.
Both of those guys were horrible for their own people. Hitler eventually led Germany to ruin, and Iran spent most of Ahmadinejad's rule isolated on the international stage.
By contrast, I don't think Reagan or Bill Clinton are considered to be "monsters" internationally by anyone other than a group of fringe lunatics. (I'd also posit that both men are more well looked upon by the world at large than by citizens of their own country... ditto Margret Thatcher, actually.)
My point is that it's ridiculous for a standards agency to not publish the standard so as to defeat "attempts to cheat the test." Not having standardized rules understood by all the players allows the standards agency to attack whoever they don't like.
Sometimes, wise decision makers are better then well-defined laws.
Of course, the problem with government by unwritten rule is that the "wise decision makers" will then use that rule to punish their enemies simply for being their enemies.
Look at the IRS, which targeted people and groups they didn't like for harassment. That's allegedly illegal, but nobody was ever punished for it because "wise decision makers" didn't think it was necessary.
Look at the Secret Service, who did not like that a member of Congress was investigating them, so they leaked that a decade earlier, he applied for a job with them and they decided not to hire him. Allegedly illegal, but no one will be punished for that because the "wise decision makers" don't think it's necessary.
To turn it back to the automotive world, the "wise decision makers" in government decided to PLAY UP an unintended acceleration issue in Toyotas and COVER UP a similar bug in GM cars because the government owned GM at the time.
Part of the reason we have written laws is that they're supposed to protect us from government by the whims of "wise decision makers."
If the law itself is unjust, enforcing the law is unjust.
Wait, does the Chinese F-35 work? Because if so, it's not a very good copy.
If most of the rich people that Trump knows are in the entertainment field, I can see why he feels that way.
I'm fairly confident Donald Trump understands that most "rich" people have their money tied up in non-liquid assets because Trump himself owns like $10 billion in real estate.
All Trump is doing is pandering.
Instead of the more obvious option, the Patriots stole the encryption codes and purposely overpowered the real signal with their own.
Stealing the encryption key isn't necessary. "League officials" in a room at Gillette Stadium are monitoring the transmissions anyway (on equipment set up by the Patriots.) The radio broadcast of the game could easily have been fed into the coach's feed at that point.
Probably the closest they ever got was with the iPod in the MP3 player market and even there they never achieved monopoly power
I'm not sure what your definition of monopoly is, but by the real definition, Apple used vendor lock in to secure a monopoly in the sale of digital music and standalone players by preventing synchronization between iTunes and competing players, or between iPods and competing synchronization software. They then coerced accessory manufacturers to only support iPods, rather than competing players.
They were an abusive monopoly in exactly the same way Microsoft is accused of being.
As you correctly note, the hardware market they monopolized no longer exists in a meaningful way. And although iTunes is still an anti-competitive pain in the ass, there are other meaningful music stores now that prevent iTunes from being a monopoly.
Mr. McAfee, obviously your field of expertise is Information Security. What are the one or two biggest problems facing the Federal government from an IT perspective? How would you solve these problems?
2. If you live in the person's district, and you like the kind of things they propose, you should remember to vote for them in the next election. (Alternatively, if you dislike the kind of scandals they get in, you should remember not to vote for them.)
3. Yes, most elected Republicans agree on most things. Most elected Democrats agree on most things. The fact that Lee's bill is coming to the floor means that it has support from the elected officials in his party. The next Republican to run in a Senate election a given American voter base an opportunity to vote for would probably vote for this bill if they had the chance, whether that candidate is an incumbent or not. (I'm not sure if the bill has Democrat support, but if it does, the next Democrat would vote for it if they had the chance and if it doesn't they'd vote against it.)
4. By calling the comment "Name that Party," I'm criticizing outlets (of which there are plenty) that tend to hide or help party affiliations in a way that helps the Democrats. Say you have a story about a mid level or low level politician getting caught doing something bad. If the politician is a Democrat, they'll probably hide the party affiliation and if the politician is a Republican, they'll emphasize it. This leads to the impression that Republicans are invariably corrupt. Say the politician did something good or popular, like Lee did in this case (at least to the Slashdot* audience.) If the politician is a Democrat, they'll emphasize the label and if the politician is a Republican, they'll hide it, which leads to the impression that only Democrats have good and popular ideas.
But anyway, all this is standard practice in the United States. If you're not an American, why do you care how American publications cover American politics. Since you can't vote for or against Lee and his law isn't going to come to pass in your country, why would you bother reading this thread in the first place?
*Slashdot plays this game, but unlike most outlets it's not so much that they're trying to create an impression as much as that the editing is always incompetent anyway.
If Slashdot was a reputable source of news, they'd include the party and district (or state, when appropriate... as a Senator, Lee's district is all of Utah) every time they mention an elected official.
I think it's safe to say that we all, as citizens, give state money, or what you euphemistically call "a citizen's tax money" to someone we hate. For me, James Inhofe, for you probably someone like Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer.
We're not paying Sanders, Boxer, or Inhofe to speak. We're paying them to do a job, which is different. All three are doing the job of United States Senator very well. (That's a low bar to cross.)
Meanwhile, under the current system, if a citizen supports a candidate, they can, but are not obliged to, cut a check to the candidate directly. This way, nobody has to give money to someone they hate.
Right, but not complete. Under the current system not only can a Citizen cut a check to a candidate they support, but a non-citizen legal entity (a SuperPAC) can cut a check to a candidate
Well, since PACs and other groups get their money from citizens cutting checks to them in the first place, it's the same thing.
[Super PACs make contributions] with relaxed rule as to the amount and poor accountability as to influence.
Restrictions on amounts that citizens can contribute (on their own or collectively) are a restriction on free speech anyway. We should be opposed to them.
The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.
That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things.
Whether you agree with Lessig on campaign finance restrictions being more important than free speech or not, I'm paraphrasing his group's views fairly. If you disagree, give me an alternative interpretation of his views. Don't just say "Fox News" like that means anything.
We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways...
Here in the United States, we don't place NEARLY as many restrictions on speech as most people assume... or as some would like. Other countries don't have the kind of freedoms we enjoy, and so enact tyrannical restrictions on speech. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Also, governments who enact these restrictions are doing the whole "assume buisnesses are evil and government and so-called public interest groups are righteous" thing. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that part from you, Lessig, or those governments.
It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.
If part of your plan is "Repeal part of the First Amendment," that should be your first hint that it's a bad plan.
What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance: 3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit. 4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign.
The horrible parts of your plan are steps 3 and 4, and step 6, which you didn't mention.
Your Step 3 gives people taxpayer money. People aren't entitled to "government money" (which in reality, BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS) so they can espouse crackpot views. If you want to run for President, the only people whose money you are entitled to are the people who you can convince that you and your views are important enough to fund. The government shouldn't be paying anyone to speak.
Step 4 is just plain wrong. The government can't (and shouldn't) be allowed to restrict the amount of speech made by an entity, any more than they could prevent a newspaper from printing two editions a day or say that religious services are restricted to an hour long and start throwing pastors in jail if their sermons are too long.
Step 6, which you don't address, concerns the professional media. Under your plan, due to the advertising restrictions you're placing, most people will learn most of their information from the news media. (This is explicitly part of Lessig's May Day plan.) News media coverage is itself a form of advertising, which is left untouched under your and Lessig's plan. If the media decides that they support candidate A versus candidate B, and they slant the news that way, there will be no one to oppose them because your and Lessig's advertising restrictions are keeping them out of the field. (Part of Lessig's bet is that the media will continue to collaborate to pick candidates that he supports.)
I don't. Under the ridiculous campaign finance restrictions that Lessig wants, nobody whose ideas deviate from the media's will be able to inform voters about anything at all. (After all, Lessig exempts the media from his plan.) Sanders's supporters deviate to the media's left, while the people I support deviate to their right.
Under Lessig's plan, the media cabal would pick every candidate for every office forever.
We celebrate it in spirit as "Labor Day"
The idea behind May Day is the international solidarity of workers after an event that happened on May 1st. Other than that they were both pushed for by labor unions, the Labor Day celebrated in the United States has nothing to do with it. Which is why it's not in May.
A survey of economists that found solutions based on the market were not market based solutions.
Your survey says that the economists they surveyed supported Pigovian taxes. It doesn't say that they consider Pigovian taxes "market based."
I'm not sure where you want to put the murderers and rapists if not prison, but that's different than paying someone to say stupid and hateful things. Under non-tyrannical governments, you don't have to pay someone to say stupid and hateful things... and you get to pick what's stupid and hateful, and thus, from whom you will withhold those funds.
The GAO is a Congressional organization, and the Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress following the 2006 elections.
I mean, clearly the Debian guys have thought of this, so what am I missing?