Presumably because you lack reading comprehension.
Smart. Advocacy by insult. That'll bolster your case and show just how brilliant you are.
I think the question's perfectly understandable and probably answerable. C++0x appears to have more or less been done (and given a more sensible name) by a guy who clearly knows C++. There's a compiler *now*. Why shouldn't I move in that direction if I want a modernized C++?
It's your opinion that a spectrum free of politics would be preferable.
Hardly the central point of my argument -- it's largely a rhetorical point to underscore the fact that that it's highly unlikely TFD would be the *end* of politically oriented broadcasting. And again, there's considerable evidence to back up this assertion, given that broadcasters still covered politics while TFD was in effect.
But to some extent, I suspect you *could* fashion an objective argument stating that the current state of things may not even be marginally better than no coverage at all, if you start by considering some simple questions about values. What's the *purpose* of political programming? Is it simply entertainment? Or editorial propaganda? It's a value judgment, but I don't think it's just my "opinion" that it would be objectively better to have programming that transcends both of those functions and really educates.
And I'm not sure we've got it. Despite the "diversity" of programming, it's still apparently true that the majority of Americans don't seem to know much about policy issues underlying political decisions. If some accounts are true, a significant number still believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, can't locate Iraq on a map, are barely aware that there are Muslim sects and how they compete and are related. You'd think that after 5 years of war, most of us would have a deeper understanding of this -- in fact, for a well-tuned representative democracy, we'd *need* to know at least a limited amount of this in order to make good judgments when it's time hold those in office accountable via elections.
If these things are true, it's hard to argue the current broadcast media is providing a useful function on this front. And if it's not, then it's essentially something else, probably either the aforementioned propaganda or entertainment.
What about those who disagree and enjoy the products available today? Would it not be "unfair" to them to lose access to programming they enjoy?
To the extent that "enjoyment" means entertainment that excludes the value I'm describing, it doesn't fare well when in contrast, except perhaps to those who value bread and circus over a functional and responsible society.
As it happens, it doesn't seem to be the case that the entire landscape of broadcast media is devoid of which meets the standards I've described. In particular, I could point to This American Life. They aren't uniformly agreeable to my thinking, but it's inarguable that some of their pieces have really transcended reporting to become real educational journalism. As an almost quintessential example, the recent episode "The Giant Pool of Money" is an excellent layman's overview of the housing bust and credit crisis. There's been similar in-depth pieces on Iraq, on the history and current status of habeas corpus, and other topics.
But it's not hard to view this as the exception that proves the rule. It's such a strange show against the landscape. More than half of the time it isn't even politics at all, just oddly individualized narrative journalism.
Ah, but you ignore the unintended consequences. If a radio station has to deal with TFD, then maybe its better to stay out of politics altogether.
Were this to prove 100% true across all broadcast media, I might be mostly OK with that, in large part because I think a spectrum free of politics could be preferable to what we've got today.
But political coverage didn't go away under TFD, so there's not a lot of evidence this makes it impossible to operate a broadcast operation profitably, or even preferentially.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies
You know, I've read up on the history, and I think that it's barely defensible that it's *ever* been used in that manner. Even the cases the Supreme Court issued rulings on that stated its use might be "chilling speech" or "inescapably dampens" debate seem pretty borderline to me. And the only evidence that it's ever been used as part of a coordinated campaign is under Kennedy -- and further, it's not clear that particular campaign wasn't in the spirit of TFD by actually getting some further diversity of opinion into broadcast media. TFD doesn't silence a viewpoint or, contrary to popular misconception, even require *equal* time. It just says you have to give *some* time to alternative opinion.
And it isn't, as you say, as if TFD is nothing but a stick to silence someone. Nor, if you get down to it, is it by any stretch of the imagination the only tool or the most effective tool to silence a viewpoint on broadcast media. *Ownership* is by far the most effective tool, and it's precisely to counter that TFD ever existed. That or anti-consolidation policies are the only potential counterweights. Guess what else has also been eroded since the phasing out of TFD? It'd be nice if among the "huge selection of opinion avenues" you mentioned there was real diversity, but it's a lot like Wendell Berry says in one of his essays on the modern economy: "amid an astonishing variety of products, one is denied certain significant choices."
Now, I agree when it comes to the Internet there's no need for a fairness doctrine. There's an exceptional variety of viewpoints and facts represented on the net, there isn't bandwidth scarcity or real economic barriers to "broadcast" like there is with TV and radio. See a viewpoint you don't like? It's the first medium in which it's truly incredibly easy to counter speech with more speech.
But broadcast media? Far from there yet, even with the "diversity" of programming. It may not be that the last conception of TFD was the best one, but it's far from unreasonable to suggest that with a scarce and inarguably *public* resource like spectrum, we have a right as a society to ask that it be used in a way that goes beyond the preferences and profit of those it's leased to.
Perhaps because it prevented an increase in premiums? Or it went into preventing a decrease (or an outright increase) in quality of care?
These possibilities are worth considering.
Or course, it's also quite likely that malpractice insurance companies, health care providers, and health insurers had little incentive to pass any savings on to those insured. An insurance marketplace isn't like some other basic marketplaces like, say, restaurants (if it were, we wouldn't eat out at the restaurant of our choice, we'd get subsidized meals at the company affiliated locations). Most of us don't chose our health plan on our own, and nobody really knows how good their plan is until they really, really need it -- and by that point, if there's a problem, you're going to have trouble getting someone else to cover you, so it's not easy to switch away from a poor alternative. Furthermore, choice at signup time is plagued by the problem of considerable information asymmetry -- the insurance companies most assuredly have an army of actuaries and lawyers and others to assess and manage the risk each potential new customer adds to the pool, but individual consumers don't have ready access to similarly significant information about insurers for comparison, and even where some sources exist, the time investment's pretty daunting. Market forces operate pretty weakly for the consumer, if at all.
So, two plausible scenarios:
1) Tort reform prevented cost increases, and resulted in more stable costs for consumers, but not price reductions 2) Tort reform prevented cost increases, and resulted in more stable or reduced costs for insurers, who kept extra as profits
Which is it? Either's fairly plausible; we'd probably have to see either stats on health care / insurance prices in texas, or have public balance sheets for insurers....
the Democrats are running away from the problems that need to be solved. It's their job, and it's not done yet, so they deserve no recess in August
This is an understandable view from someone who has not yet realized that policy work can be done and is most certainly done while the legislature is not in session.
Or from someone who thinks that it is so pressing to vote now to bring online a questionably significant supply in 10 years that the legislation must be made immediately.
Maybe you're not aware of it, but from the mid 90s to 2006, there's all kinds of shut-out stories of precisely the kind you're talking about -- the Republican party didn't episodically decide to shut the Dems out, there was a concerted effort and plan for marginalizing them as fully as possible. Take a listen to Act III of This American Life's Houses of Ill Repute episode if you're interested in some perspective.
Personally, I don't recall stories during that time period about how the Republicans were censoring the Democrats, but perhaps, since you have *guaranteed* that it would be covered in that manner, you can put up some examples.
That's too easy: The oil companies benefit from the Republican policies. They want them to stay this way. They drop the prices temporarily on the same day that their puppet makes his announcement. See it works?!
It's far more likely that if there was any kind of shennanigans involved here, it's the other way around. The administration, given its connections, is quite likely to understand when a fall is likely to come in prices. Timing their announcement to a likely fall would be easier than orchestrating a fall.
Not that orchestrating a fall would be impossible. As someone else has stated here in the thread, the biggest question about oil prices may well be whether or not foreign supply will be disrupted by unrest. The Bush administration would be quite able to whisper into a few ears that they have no intention of attacking Iran, and one major question that props up prices would be put to rest.
As for whether or not oil companies intentionally hoarded supply and then dropped it on the market, timed to the drilling announcement, I think that's less likely than coincidence.
But all of these things are *still* at least somewhat more likely than the idea that pricing was seriously affected by speculation about extra supply coming on in 10 years. The likelihood of that supply making a dent only makes sense if you also anticipate worldwide demand slowing, and most of the third world is only just getting started industrializing, so that seems pretty unlikely.
Sure it is. But the most salient point under discussion -- offshore drilling -- aren't going to provide any kind of timely extra supply, and has some interesting problems associated with it (such as: (a) if this is about greater domestic energy independence, will this oil go on the international market or will it only be sold domestically (b) what about strategic reserves? Our military runs on oil. Don't we want to use as much of the rest of the world's supply before we drill locally for optimal security? (c) if oil prices go down, doesn't that retard economic incentives for moving to renewables (d) if there's a real possibility we're at world peak oil, don't we want to save some extra oil for the last part of the curve just in case we need extra resources to transition over?).
It's a bit misguided to claim there's some kind of urgency that means voting for drilling *this* *month* when the issue of how to use our remaining supply is that complex AND it's impossible to bring the supply online quicky.
Then let the Democrats explicitly say so, and give the (R) campaign fodder for the Nov elections.
Assuming that the Republicans also understand the complexities above, the explanation that makes the most sense is that campaign fodder is exactly what this is about.
Assuming they don't, that's campaign fodder of a different but much more relevant sort.
This is to say nothing of a number of lower profile controversies and the fact that their entire site is a usability nightmare that seems largely designed to trick marginally informed customers into buying (and cause more savvy customers to explode in frustration).
Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free?
The masterminds are far more likely to get away scot-free with the immunity, because it blots out the discovery that would be involved in the telecom trials. There's a huge avenue to even find out *what actually happened* that's taken away because of the immunity.
I've always been a believer that some state secrets are necessary, and that, yes, a significant portion of the voting population is basically to busy with other things to care about real policy.
But you know what? I'm sick and tired of the idea that our elected officials should get a general pass just because they may know something we don't. Is it too much to expect them to explain what they're thinking in clear terms? If the justification for doing what they're doing really is that good, shouldn't it be compelling? If it is that compelling, why are they just sitting on it? How hard is it, when you're a person who's privileged to hold national office, to release a believable and factual statement explaining things?
I don't even need this every day. Just on big things, like trashing the fourth amendment and granting immunity to people who knowingly do it.
What do they know that we don't? I don't know. But until they can come out and explain themselves, I'm going to assume the answer to that question is: not a damn thing.
I wonder what the DNC and its fan base is going to do when they find out en masse?
It's freaking out. I can tell you that. People who were enthusiastic -- donation and campaign-volunteer enthusiastic -- about Obama 3 weeks ago are now again considering him the lesser of two evils. Some doubt they'll vote for him, and I think unless Obama's able to come up with a better explanation about this, he deserves to take a serious hit in support.
I wonder how they'll spin it if McCain's campaign ever gets its head out of its collective ass and spreads word about it?
If it comes from the McCain campaign? I don't give a flying fig newton. Obama's reluctant caving isn't attractive, but having it pointed out to me by anyone who's been an active cheerleader for the warrantless wiretaps and other abuses seems like a more active hypocrisy.
No. It REQUIRES equal time and space for people with opposing or different views. Big difference.
"It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views."[^]
The fairness doctrine would require stations playing it to give equal blocks of time - in equivalent timeslots - to anti-conservative viewpoints, which would NOT attract the target demographic. This would be a massive financial hit (in a number of ways) on any station that played a talk show with enough of a point-of-view to invoke the doctrine.
It wouldn't, according to the Wikipedia article, but even supposing that it's wrong, I'm not sure I'd have more than a limited problem with that.
What a Fairness Doctrine basically says starts with this premise: spectrum isn't like other property. It's certainly nothing like conventional tangible property which can actually be in someone's possession, yet in many senses it's scarcer and more valuable than other means of expression like a press. Huge utility to it as well. So there's nothing wrong with deciding as a society that it isn't just for investment and wealth, and it isn't just for advocacy of any private viewpoint. There are other obligations that come with it.
I've read the argument from the linked Cato report:
"if political editorials or personal attacks will trigger an obligation in broadcasters to afford the opportunity for expression to speakers who need not pay for time and whose views are unpalatable to the licensees, then broadcasters will be irresistibly forced to self-censorship and their coverage of controversial public issues will be eliminated or at least rendered wholly ineffective. "
Which makes sense if the interests of broadcasters is the only value worth considering in this equation and spectrum is just more property which they own.
But if you subscribe to the idea that it's for more, then it becomes obvious that a business model which finds it impossible to devote any broadcast time to opposing points of view is a less worthy use of spectrum than a business model which can.
This is the TOP COMMENT in the discussion, a discussion that's already evolved to discover that the summary is largely wrong and misleading. And the comment itself is essentially partisan flamebait with no real information.
I recognize that it's good fun to take every opportunity you can to regale the entire internet with kneejerk responses, and if that's your thing, more power to you. But any mod who marked this "insightful" is unquestionably and irreversibly lobotomized.
I was genuinely interested in seeing if anyone could reference actions attributable to the fairness doctrine that effectively suppressed any point of view. According to the wikipedia entry, the Fairness Doctrine: merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
It seems likely to allow broadcasters freedom to espouse any point of view they wish while simultaneously giving some access to minority or marginalized points of view, and I'm having trouble imagining how this would play out in such a way as to bury any point of view, conservative or otherwise.
But I'm aware the law of unintended consequences has an amazing reach, and it does say the Supreme court found it had a "chilling effect" on speech. I just don't understand the mechanism and am unfamiliar with any specific case, so I figured I'd *ask* for incidences where the Fairness Doctrine was abused to the suppression of conservative views.
Lloyd Alexander's books. His "Chronicles of Prydain" (starting with "The Book of Three") are probably his best work, but he's got some other wonderful stuff.
Jeff Smith's Bone -- don't hold the fact that it's a graphic novel against it.:)
Why doesn't he focus his energy on the company HE works for ?... I think I'll spend tomorrow seeing if I can't fix our competitions problems for them.
He is focusing his energy on the company he works for. This isn't a genuinely friendly suggestion for improvement -- in fact, it's likely it's presented that way to mask what he's really trying to do.
Google's stellar image hurts Microsoft as much as the quality of their products. It influences people to choose them for search and as an ad broker. It encourages top talent to look for employment there instead of MS or elsewhere.
So if there is any cost to offering Google criticism that might end up being constructive to them, it's balanced against the benefit MS may derive if they can successfully tarnish Google's image.
As it happens, in this case, I think there's not even a chance this might be constructive criticism. The engineering-centric culture at Google is considered a feature, not a bug, and it's improbable Google will change this. Everybody writing these articles knows this.
Look, how is Microsoft going to compete with Google? What, historically, are their best tactics?
Yeah.
I think we're going to see a lot more articles like this appearing in the press for the forseeable future. Some of the sources will have direct and obvious connections to Microsoft, others won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably because you lack reading comprehension.
Smart. Advocacy by insult. That'll bolster your case and show just how brilliant you are.
I think the question's perfectly understandable and probably answerable. C++0x appears to have more or less been done (and given a more sensible name) by a guy who clearly knows C++. There's a compiler *now*. Why shouldn't I move in that direction if I want a modernized C++?
If you think "modern" languages are more expressive, then give "modern" C++ a try (insert comment about recent compilers here).
If I were going to ditch my preferred more expressive language, why wouldn't I just go to something like D?
The word is "racket."
It's your opinion that a spectrum free of politics would be preferable.
Hardly the central point of my argument -- it's largely a rhetorical point to underscore the fact that that it's highly unlikely TFD would be the *end* of politically oriented broadcasting. And again, there's considerable evidence to back up this assertion, given that broadcasters still covered politics while TFD was in effect.
But to some extent, I suspect you *could* fashion an objective argument stating that the current state of things may not even be marginally better than no coverage at all, if you start by considering some simple questions about values. What's the *purpose* of political programming? Is it simply entertainment? Or editorial propaganda? It's a value judgment, but I don't think it's just my "opinion" that it would be objectively better to have programming that transcends both of those functions and really educates.
And I'm not sure we've got it. Despite the "diversity" of programming, it's still apparently true that the majority of Americans don't seem to know much about policy issues underlying political decisions. If some accounts are true, a significant number still believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, can't locate Iraq on a map, are barely aware that there are Muslim sects and how they compete and are related. You'd think that after 5 years of war, most of us would have a deeper understanding of this -- in fact, for a well-tuned representative democracy, we'd *need* to know at least a limited amount of this in order to make good judgments when it's time hold those in office accountable via elections.
If these things are true, it's hard to argue the current broadcast media is providing a useful function on this front. And if it's not, then it's essentially something else, probably either the aforementioned propaganda or entertainment.
What about those who disagree and enjoy the products available today? Would it not be "unfair" to them to lose access to programming they enjoy?
To the extent that "enjoyment" means entertainment that excludes the value I'm describing, it doesn't fare well when in contrast, except perhaps to those who value bread and circus over a functional and responsible society.
As it happens, it doesn't seem to be the case that the entire landscape of broadcast media is devoid of which meets the standards I've described. In particular, I could point to This American Life. They aren't uniformly agreeable to my thinking, but it's inarguable that some of their pieces have really transcended reporting to become real educational journalism. As an almost quintessential example, the recent episode "The Giant Pool of Money" is an excellent layman's overview of the housing bust and credit crisis. There's been similar in-depth pieces on Iraq, on the history and current status of habeas corpus, and other topics.
But it's not hard to view this as the exception that proves the rule. It's such a strange show against the landscape. More than half of the time it isn't even politics at all, just oddly individualized narrative journalism.
Ah, but you ignore the unintended consequences. If a radio station has to deal with TFD, then maybe its better to stay out of politics altogether.
Were this to prove 100% true across all broadcast media, I might be mostly OK with that, in large part because I think a spectrum free of politics could be preferable to what we've got today.
But political coverage didn't go away under TFD, so there's not a lot of evidence this makes it impossible to operate a broadcast operation profitably, or even preferentially.
The Fairness Doctrine isn't. All throughout it's history, it's been used by whoever was in power at the time to silence their enemies
You know, I've read up on the history, and I think that it's barely defensible that it's *ever* been used in that manner. Even the cases the Supreme Court issued rulings on that stated its use might be "chilling speech" or "inescapably dampens" debate seem pretty borderline to me. And the only evidence that it's ever been used as part of a coordinated campaign is under Kennedy -- and further, it's not clear that particular campaign wasn't in the spirit of TFD by actually getting some further diversity of opinion into broadcast media. TFD doesn't silence a viewpoint or, contrary to popular misconception, even require *equal* time. It just says you have to give *some* time to alternative opinion.
And it isn't, as you say, as if TFD is nothing but a stick to silence someone. Nor, if you get down to it, is it by any stretch of the imagination the only tool or the most effective tool to silence a viewpoint on broadcast media. *Ownership* is by far the most effective tool, and it's precisely to counter that TFD ever existed. That or anti-consolidation policies are the only potential counterweights. Guess what else has also been eroded since the phasing out of TFD? It'd be nice if among the "huge selection of opinion avenues" you mentioned there was real diversity, but it's a lot like Wendell Berry says in one of his essays on the modern economy: "amid an astonishing variety of products, one is denied certain significant choices."
Now, I agree when it comes to the Internet there's no need for a fairness doctrine. There's an exceptional variety of viewpoints and facts represented on the net, there isn't bandwidth scarcity or real economic barriers to "broadcast" like there is with TV and radio. See a viewpoint you don't like? It's the first medium in which it's truly incredibly easy to counter speech with more speech.
But broadcast media? Far from there yet, even with the "diversity" of programming. It may not be that the last conception of TFD was the best one, but it's far from unreasonable to suggest that with a scarce and inarguably *public* resource like spectrum, we have a right as a society to ask that it be used in a way that goes beyond the preferences and profit of those it's leased to.
Perhaps because it prevented an increase in premiums? Or it went into preventing a decrease (or an outright increase) in quality of care?
These possibilities are worth considering.
Or course, it's also quite likely that malpractice insurance companies, health care providers, and health insurers had little incentive to pass any savings on to those insured. An insurance marketplace isn't like some other basic marketplaces like, say, restaurants (if it were, we wouldn't eat out at the restaurant of our choice, we'd get subsidized meals at the company affiliated locations). Most of us don't chose our health plan on our own, and nobody really knows how good their plan is until they really, really need it -- and by that point, if there's a problem, you're going to have trouble getting someone else to cover you, so it's not easy to switch away from a poor alternative. Furthermore, choice at signup time is plagued by the problem of considerable information asymmetry -- the insurance companies most assuredly have an army of actuaries and lawyers and others to assess and manage the risk each potential new customer adds to the pool, but individual consumers don't have ready access to similarly significant information about insurers for comparison, and even where some sources exist, the time investment's pretty daunting. Market forces operate pretty weakly for the consumer, if at all.
So, two plausible scenarios:
1) Tort reform prevented cost increases, and resulted in more stable costs for consumers, but not price reductions
2) Tort reform prevented cost increases, and resulted in more stable or reduced costs for insurers, who kept extra as profits
Which is it? Either's fairly plausible; we'd probably have to see either stats on health care / insurance prices in texas, or have public balance sheets for insurers....
the Democrats are running away from the problems that need to be solved. It's their job, and it's not done yet, so they deserve no recess in August
This is an understandable view from someone who has not yet realized that policy work can be done and is most certainly done while the legislature is not in session.
Or from someone who thinks that it is so pressing to vote now to bring online a questionably significant supply in 10 years that the legislation must be made immediately.
Maybe you're not aware of it, but from the mid 90s to 2006, there's all kinds of shut-out stories of precisely the kind you're talking about -- the Republican party didn't episodically decide to shut the Dems out, there was a concerted effort and plan for marginalizing them as fully as possible. Take a listen to Act III of This American Life's Houses of Ill Repute episode if you're interested in some perspective.
Personally, I don't recall stories during that time period about how the Republicans were censoring the Democrats, but perhaps, since you have *guaranteed* that it would be covered in that manner, you can put up some examples.
That's too easy: The oil companies benefit from the Republican policies. They want them to stay this way. They drop the prices temporarily on the same day that their puppet makes his announcement. See it works?!
It's far more likely that if there was any kind of shennanigans involved here, it's the other way around. The administration, given its connections, is quite likely to understand when a fall is likely to come in prices. Timing their announcement to a likely fall would be easier than orchestrating a fall.
Not that orchestrating a fall would be impossible. As someone else has stated here in the thread, the biggest question about oil prices may well be whether or not foreign supply will be disrupted by unrest. The Bush administration would be quite able to whisper into a few ears that they have no intention of attacking Iran, and one major question that props up prices would be put to rest.
As for whether or not oil companies intentionally hoarded supply and then dropped it on the market, timed to the drilling announcement, I think that's less likely than coincidence.
But all of these things are *still* at least somewhat more likely than the idea that pricing was seriously affected by speculation about extra supply coming on in 10 years. The likelihood of that supply making a dent only makes sense if you also anticipate worldwide demand slowing, and most of the third world is only just getting started industrializing, so that seems pretty unlikely.
So the energy and oil crisis isn't pressing?
Sure it is. But the most salient point under discussion -- offshore drilling -- aren't going to provide any kind of timely extra supply, and has some interesting problems associated with it (such as: (a) if this is about greater domestic energy independence, will this oil go on the international market or will it only be sold domestically (b) what about strategic reserves? Our military runs on oil. Don't we want to use as much of the rest of the world's supply before we drill locally for optimal security? (c) if oil prices go down, doesn't that retard economic incentives for moving to renewables (d) if there's a real possibility we're at world peak oil, don't we want to save some extra oil for the last part of the curve just in case we need extra resources to transition over?).
It's a bit misguided to claim there's some kind of urgency that means voting for drilling *this* *month* when the issue of how to use our remaining supply is that complex AND it's impossible to bring the supply online quicky.
Then let the Democrats explicitly say so, and give the (R) campaign fodder for the Nov elections.
Assuming that the Republicans also understand the complexities above, the explanation that makes the most sense is that campaign fodder is exactly what this is about.
Assuming they don't, that's campaign fodder of a different but much more relevant sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoDaddy#Controversies
This is to say nothing of a number of lower profile controversies and the fact that their entire site is a usability nightmare that seems largely designed to trick marginally informed customers into buying (and cause more savvy customers to explode in frustration).
MySQL XML Functions.
First release with native XML functions. If there's indexing behind some of the XPath, this could be a very interesting release indeed.
I'd definitely be interested to hear what it's also missing that more XML aware databases include, though.
Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free?
The masterminds are far more likely to get away scot-free with the immunity, because it blots out the discovery that would be involved in the telecom trials. There's a huge avenue to even find out *what actually happened* that's taken away because of the immunity.
I wonder what they know that we don't?
How to get elected?
I've always been a believer that some state secrets are necessary, and that, yes, a significant portion of the voting population is basically to busy with other things to care about real policy.
But you know what? I'm sick and tired of the idea that our elected officials should get a general pass just because they may know something we don't. Is it too much to expect them to explain what they're thinking in clear terms? If the justification for doing what they're doing really is that good, shouldn't it be compelling? If it is that compelling, why are they just sitting on it? How hard is it, when you're a person who's privileged to hold national office, to release a believable and factual statement explaining things?
I don't even need this every day. Just on big things, like trashing the fourth amendment and granting immunity to people who knowingly do it.
What do they know that we don't? I don't know. But until they can come out and explain themselves, I'm going to assume the answer to that question is: not a damn thing.
I wonder what the DNC and its fan base is going to do when they find out en masse?
It's freaking out. I can tell you that. People who were enthusiastic -- donation and campaign-volunteer enthusiastic -- about Obama 3 weeks ago are now again considering him the lesser of two evils. Some doubt they'll vote for him, and I think unless Obama's able to come up with a better explanation about this, he deserves to take a serious hit in support.
I wonder how they'll spin it if McCain's campaign ever gets its head out of its collective ass and spreads word about it?
If it comes from the McCain campaign? I don't give a flying fig newton. Obama's reluctant caving isn't attractive, but having it pointed out to me by anyone who's been an active cheerleader for the warrantless wiretaps and other abuses seems like a more active hypocrisy.
No. It REQUIRES equal time and space for people with opposing or different views. Big difference.
"It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views."[^]
The fairness doctrine would require stations playing it to give equal blocks of time - in equivalent timeslots - to anti-conservative viewpoints, which would NOT attract the target demographic. This would be a massive financial hit (in a number of ways) on any station that played a talk show with enough of a point-of-view to invoke the doctrine.
It wouldn't, according to the Wikipedia article, but even supposing that it's wrong, I'm not sure I'd have more than a limited problem with that.
What a Fairness Doctrine basically says starts with this premise: spectrum isn't like other property. It's certainly nothing like conventional tangible property which can actually be in someone's possession, yet in many senses it's scarcer and more valuable than other means of expression like a press. Huge utility to it as well. So there's nothing wrong with deciding as a society that it isn't just for investment and wealth, and it isn't just for advocacy of any private viewpoint. There are other obligations that come with it.
I've read the argument from the linked Cato report:
"if political editorials or personal attacks will trigger an obligation in broadcasters to afford the opportunity for expression to speakers who need not pay for time and whose views are unpalatable to the licensees, then broadcasters will be irresistibly forced to self-censorship and their coverage of controversial public issues will be eliminated or at least rendered wholly ineffective. "
Which makes sense if the interests of broadcasters is the only value worth considering in this equation and spectrum is just more property which they own.
But if you subscribe to the idea that it's for more, then it becomes obvious that a business model which finds it impossible to devote any broadcast time to opposing points of view is a less worthy use of spectrum than a business model which can.
This is the TOP COMMENT in the discussion, a discussion that's already evolved to discover that the summary is largely wrong and misleading. And the comment itself is essentially partisan flamebait with no real information.
I recognize that it's good fun to take every opportunity you can to regale the entire internet with kneejerk responses, and if that's your thing, more power to you. But any mod who marked this "insightful" is unquestionably and irreversibly lobotomized.
I was genuinely interested in seeing if anyone could reference actions attributable to the fairness doctrine that effectively suppressed any point of view. According to the wikipedia entry, the Fairness Doctrine:
merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
It seems likely to allow broadcasters freedom to espouse any point of view they wish while simultaneously giving some access to minority or marginalized points of view, and I'm having trouble imagining how this would play out in such a way as to bury any point of view, conservative or otherwise.
But I'm aware the law of unintended consequences has an amazing reach, and it does say the Supreme court found it had a "chilling effect" on speech. I just don't understand the mechanism and am unfamiliar with any specific case, so I figured I'd *ask* for incidences where the Fairness Doctrine was abused to the suppression of conservative views.
the old, so-called, "Fairness Doctrine" that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting
[Citation needed]
Lloyd Alexander's books. His "Chronicles of Prydain" (starting with "The Book of Three") are probably his best work, but he's got some other wonderful stuff.
Jeff Smith's Bone -- don't hold the fact that it's a graphic novel against it. :)
It still seems possible that someone else (say, Sturgeon) killed Nina and for whatever reason Reiser was privy to that detail.
However, I can't say at this point that I'd be willing to bet on it. Or vote not guilty on a jury.
Why doesn't he focus his energy on the company HE works for ? ... I think I'll spend tomorrow seeing if I can't fix our competitions problems for them.
He is focusing his energy on the company he works for. This isn't a genuinely friendly suggestion for improvement -- in fact, it's likely it's presented that way to mask what he's really trying to do.
Google's stellar image hurts Microsoft as much as the quality of their products. It influences people to choose them for search and as an ad broker. It encourages top talent to look for employment there instead of MS or elsewhere.
So if there is any cost to offering Google criticism that might end up being constructive to them, it's balanced against the benefit MS may derive if they can successfully tarnish Google's image.
As it happens, in this case, I think there's not even a chance this might be constructive criticism. The engineering-centric culture at Google is considered a feature, not a bug, and it's improbable Google will change this. Everybody writing these articles knows this.
The Submarine.
Look, how is Microsoft going to compete with Google? What, historically, are their best tactics?
Yeah.
I think we're going to see a lot more articles like this appearing in the press for the forseeable future. Some of the sources will have direct and obvious connections to Microsoft, others won't.