The one day I don't read/. I miss a post about the LVMI. Ugh.
I'm not sure it matters. Analog radio is dead. Podcasting is taking over most of my listening needs. All my teenage employees iPod their music, too.
I don't see the FCC being important anyway. All the good technology seems to find ways around regulated frequencies. Interference? It gets better with time, in my life.
All the pro amd anti-free market posts miss one thing: no AnCap like me supports the illusion of a corporation. We're individualists who believe in responsibility. Corporate greed, government tyranny, it is all the same. Individuals rarely have power without either being in government (force) or being incorporated (protected by those with force).
Re:Desire for monopoly = unions, taxes, censorship
on
When Pigs Wifi
·
· Score: 1
California Highway 91's Express route was privately owned and very successful.
Now look at it de-privatized. Very sad.
Re:Desire for monopoly = unions, taxes, censorship
on
When Pigs Wifi
·
· Score: 1
Who needs speed limits, police patrols, motor vehicle laws or driver registration
Insurance companies would set guidelines in order for the insured to balance safety versus time savings. Public welfare protected by profits. Cops use speed limits as municipal income.
when a toll booth at every intersection will free everyone and solve their problems.
It won't happen. We pay huge for our roads. When the State of California privatized a major highway, it reduced traffic to nil, and people were happy to pay. Then they took it over publicly and it quickly failed.
What they need to do is to adopt our health care model where healthy competition can spur the development of superior products and services and at lower prices.
We had the best health care in the world until you the people enacted the HMO Act. This destroyed health care and caused great strife for the poor. Canada? 16 month waits for MRIs? No distinctive drug research? Higher hospital death rates from accidents? Go ahead.
The right of profit triumphs all else.
Profit always goes both ways. One party provides a product for a cash profit. The other party provides cash for a product profit. Government, on the other hand, steals cash from one party (tax) to give a favored party a gift (discrimination).
I've read YOUR M rx and Keynes. Before you attempt to debate me with rhetoric, read MY Mises and Rothbard.
No, you'd hate this. 50% of your income is going to other people's children/clothing/housing.
Do you honestly believe that your government can do it cheaper as a monopoly than competing private companies?
Or do you want me to pay more taxes so you can save $9.95 per month?
Desire for monopoly = unions, taxes, censorship?
on
When Pigs Wifi
·
· Score: 1
Disclaimer: I couldn't RTF from my PDA.
I hate the idea of "utilities." nJohn Stossel showed that public unionized utilities were more costly, less efficient, and offered zero choice. Sell them to private competing companies and those issues turn around.
Any regulation on networks is bad. "Freeing information" only means "information provided by the free market." More information providers competing for your DOLLARS means better products/services/speeds.
Oh, you mean Keynesian black magic Econ, aka Econ 101? Sorry, Mises and Rothbard and Hayek disproved that socialist fraud generations ago. Unfortunately college professors still believe in it.
Deregulation at the national level makes sense. Get government out of it. nIf it was true dereg, it would let us focus on the real issue: too much government involvement.
People fear an SBC/Comcast monopoly. In a true free market, monopolies don't exist. Only authorities can enforce them. That's where your local government finds the blame.
SBC is given monopoly-rights through your local government. End that. Let anyone pay to run their lines. Twisted pair, coax, fiber, whatever. The infrastructure cost is huge, but it'll be offered to large businesses first. Then to smaller. Then to households.
I'm nearly 100% wireless myself. GPRS with my server-side compression is a dream. I'm posting from my h6315 right now. It's perfect. No Spyware, no IE, no concern for D/L speeds -- just information when I need it. Take DSL/cable/T1 monopolies and stick them in your cornholes. 28.8k wireless is all I ever need.
Keep craving high speed for whatever reason (porn, warez, music). I get all that through buying it and saving the headaches. I say deregulate federally, and then focus on local deregulation, too. DSL and cable are 100% tax supported when you see what local support is needed to keep the infrastructure going. I'm sick of it. I save $1000+/year by avoiding it. You keep debating a dead debate -- deregulate in one area and 700 other regulations pop up. Re-regulate and taxes/fees go up.
I'm done with it. Wired is dead for me. I'm paying $60/month for unlimited calls, data, and I have WiFi on my phone if I desperately need it (used it once). No desktop, no laptop, no need for your tax-funded, government-enforced monopoly.
Excessive regulations, ridiculous wage requirements, forced benefits, excessive taxation and inflation of the currency all combine to create a country that just can't compete.
Seriously consider moving to a free market like Dubai if you're facing a pink slip. Lots of high paying IT jobs in that freedom-loving city.
I'm in the retail and wholesale business. You don't get what you pay for, and never have.
You get what you invest. Buying anything involves more than money up front. It involves research, building a relationship with a sales staff, building a relationship with a tech staff, and following through with what your original intentions were.
Most of my consulting customers who have problems could have easily have been fixed if they invested a tiny bit more time in researching what their short term needs are. Come on, we pay $100 a month for cable TV. $100 per month for a quality laptop (over its 2 year lifetime) isn't much.
Buying a machine today for web/office apps is easy. 6 months later hoping to run CAD or video editing or whatever is where you'll find you did not invest wisely. A little more time spent researching on your own or communicating with your VAR about long term intentions would save you months or years of frustrations.
In the end, though, buying direct from Dell gets you what you deserve.
Thankfully that's fewer tax dollars spent on a program that is easily funded by private dollars. We've seen numerous slashdot articles in recent months that prove that our public dollars should no longer be used for advancing scientific studies outside of our atmosphere.
I'd like to see Congress draft a few bills canceling the old laws on the books that prevent private companies from spending their dollars finding new ways to space.
You knowingly are purchasing the vehicle as-is. If you are unsure of what they are putting in there, then don't buy it. No violation was performed.
If government forces these items on us, then we should fight that monopoly force called government. If a private manufacturer wants to push us on it, we can tell them to shove it and not buy their product.
Our medical industry is a monopoly. Schools have been threatened to keep the number of medical graduates down, which lowers the supply of doctors, hence the price goes up. Free market economics (a la Mises) is in action here.
Then, you have a federal bureaucracy which forces employers to pay medical coverage for their employees. Forcing anyone to do anything increases costs (the insurance companies love the idea of forced coverage).
Then, you remove any semblence of tort limits and allow radical injury lawsuits which make it even more expensive.
Then, you increase premiums by requiring coverage by Medicare (which means private individuals are paying for the public welfare).
Then, you force hospitals to cover anyone, whether or not they have health insurance. Premiums go up.
No one makes money in the industry anymore, except for the lawyers. And who gets elected to office? Lawyers. How many doctors are in office? The on that I am aware of is Dr. Ron Paul of Texas, the M.D. And he votes AGAINST all the corporate welfare that goes into these industries in the end.
The free market DOES work for health care. We're just pretending to ignore the facts that are out there.
This is what we need -- more government intrusion into the free market. Tax payer dollars can never do efficiently what private dollars can do in so many cases.
I hate to see this happen -- how many ISPs will initially get badly hurt only for the public to find out that the public wireless network won't handle the bandwidth.
If my ISP gave me the same service as my city clerk's office did, I'd dump it.
That's a good question, and I hate the term "Aggressive" sports but it really is so widely used in my industries. Our shop(s) sell skateboards (no longer "Alternative" as we used to call it), paintball, punk rock music (not the kind you can buy at most record shops), and some BMX products.
Aggressive is a lame description, but that is what our industry likes to call itself. I prefer calling my shop a dirty hole in the ground, beware the bathroom.
As a small retailer who owns two stores (Music related and Aggressive Sports related), I am very open about being anti-RFID within the products I carry. Should a supplier offer RFID within the POP/POS merchandising structure, I'll refuse it.
As such, I've cut back as much as I can from the Targets and Wal*Marts and other large chains, instead attempting to find smaller "Ma and Pa" shops that offer similiar merchandise. In today's market, you'd think these stores are hard to find, but I've actually found the opposite.
I've been able to buy vacuum cleaners cheaper than at the mass goods stores, TVs and DVD players as well. Found razor blades and shampoo and other items at stores that won't desire RFID or other tracking mechanisms, and I found them cheaper than I would have purchased them from the large chain stores or grocery stores.
Look around your community and find retailers who have no reason to jump on the RFID bandwagon. Do you use your "Preferred Shopper" card? You're already giving up your privacy. Do you buy online? You're already giving up your privacy. Do you give your phone number to a store when they ask for it when closing a sale? Bye bye privacy.
If you want more privacy, shop where stores provide it. Don't use your credit cards or write a check (the information can get deposited into a database), pay cash. Don't get "zero percent financing for 2 years" because you'll end up having those purchases tracked by who knows how many marketing firms.
Your choice for privacy is up to you. If you care about it, the power to keep your information away from prying eyes is readily available in even the smallest towns.
The first amendment is to protect political speech, or the ability to criticise government without fear of getting locked up in a gulag.
The first amendment is specifically aimed at preventing government from trampling on a right that is inherent in every human -- one that is God-given or natural depending on your theism or lack of it. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Our founding fathers would have not cried out against anything our governments do today, they would have rebelled again, spilled the blood of many, and stood firm against tyranny. In fact, they did this. When the U.S.'s greatest tyrant Abe Lincoln attempted to control the People, millions seceeded to form a new union of individual States, and were ultimately destroyed for their free thinking.
Most of the people on slashdot don't understand that campaign finance is a free speech issue. http://www.realcampaignreform.org/ attempted to fight this issue. The average slashdotter is very authoritarian, and doesn't understand that campaign finance would do NO harm (even if Al-Qaeda openly financed a campaign) if you shackle the hands of government by limiting the scope of their power.
Wrong. If P2P is speech, it means the federal government may not restrict it.
That is what I said. Re-read my original post that you quoted. When I said "has no mandate to restrict it" it means may not restrict it. Duh.
Wrong. State governments may not enact laws which violate people's rights under the federal constitution.
No, sir, you did not read again. The State governments may enact laws that they are not provided for to the federal government and are not considered again natural right. I reiterated this in another reply.
Wrong. See above.
Again, you fail to read and think about my reply. If P2P is speech, it can not be regulated or restricted or tax. If it is not speech, it is not within the grasp of the federal government, therefor it MAY be regulated by the States or the People, if desired.
We agree on every point, yet you seem to think we don't. Puzzling.
I completely agree, and my original post didn't convey the intent I had in offering a second view if P2P was not "speech." Even if P2P isn't speech, it still doesn't seem to be an area that the federal government has a mandate to restrict, regulate, tax, or otherwise deny. If P2P is something other than speech, the States should have a right to restrict it or let the People do it.
This is a big reason why anarchocapitalists (and most libertarians) are anti-democracy: in a democracy, power tends to trickle up to the connected few who can say they have the mandate of the many.
This country was founded on a Constitution that limits the power of the majority. 51% of the country could vote to kill the other 49%, and the Constitution does not allow them to. Don't believe the hype presented by Democrats and Republicans alike, the only mandate they have is for powers specifically delegated to them by the Constitution. Those powers are small, not wide reaching, and very limited in scope.
Living document it is not. If we are to return to personal responsibility, we need to disrupt the current authoritarian control of the federal government.
Our Constitution in the U.S. prevents Congress from making any law infringing on our natural freedom of speech. To me, P2P is communication, which is speech. Therefore, the federal government has no mandate to restrict it.
Our 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution allows the State and/or the People to cover anything the federal government can not. Should California desire to restrict P2P, it should be able to. If you disagree with California's take on this restriction, you can move to Arizona or Delaware, or another state that doesn't have such a restriction.
I'm a firm believer that State governments should be manacled by the Constitution as well, and in my perfect world the State would be just as restricted in making laws against speech. But nonetheless, I'd rather see bad laws at the State level rather than the federal level.
Keep the goons in Congress restricted from making laws, and you'll find almost everyone is happier.
Slashdot Mirror
The one day I don't read /. I miss a post about the LVMI. Ugh.
I'm not sure it matters. Analog radio is dead. Podcasting is taking over most of my listening needs. All my teenage employees iPod their music, too.
I don't see the FCC being important anyway. All the good technology seems to find ways around regulated frequencies. Interference? It gets better with time, in my life.
All the pro amd anti-free market posts miss one thing: no AnCap like me supports the illusion of a corporation. We're individualists who believe in responsibility. Corporate greed, government tyranny, it is all the same. Individuals rarely have power without either being in government (force) or being incorporated (protected by those with force).
California Highway 91's Express route was privately owned and very successful.
Now look at it de-privatized. Very sad.
Who needs speed limits, police patrols, motor vehicle laws or driver registration
Insurance companies would set guidelines in order for the insured to balance safety versus time savings. Public welfare protected by profits. Cops use speed limits as municipal income.
when a toll booth at every intersection will free everyone and solve their problems.
It won't happen. We pay huge for our roads. When the State of California privatized a major highway, it reduced traffic to nil, and people were happy to pay. Then they took it over publicly and it quickly failed.
What they need to do is to adopt our health care model where healthy competition can spur the development of superior products and services and at lower prices.
We had the best health care in the world until you the people enacted the HMO Act. This destroyed health care and caused great strife for the poor. Canada? 16 month waits for MRIs? No distinctive drug research? Higher hospital death rates from accidents? Go ahead.
The right of profit triumphs all else.
Profit always goes both ways. One party provides a product for a cash profit. The other party provides cash for a product profit. Government, on the other hand, steals cash from one party (tax) to give a favored party a gift (discrimination).
I've read YOUR M rx and Keynes. Before you attempt to debate me with rhetoric, read MY Mises and Rothbard.
No, you'd hate this. 50% of your income is going to other people's children/clothing/housing.
Do you honestly believe that your government can do it cheaper as a monopoly than competing private companies?
Or do you want me to pay more taxes so you can save $9.95 per month?
Disclaimer: I couldn't RTF from my PDA.
I hate the idea of "utilities." nJohn Stossel showed that public unionized utilities were more costly, less efficient, and offered zero choice. Sell them to private competing companies and those issues turn around.
Any regulation on networks is bad. "Freeing information" only means "information provided by the free market." More information providers competing for your DOLLARS means better products/services/speeds.
Keep the public interest/need out of it.
Where do you factor in massive fiat currency inflation in your outlook?
To me, nearly all bubbles are caused by manipulation by the Federal Reserve.
Lower interest rates = easy credit = sense of reduced risk
Higher currency inflation = higher costs = higher salaries
Oh, you mean Keynesian black magic Econ, aka Econ 101? Sorry, Mises and Rothbard and Hayek disproved that socialist fraud generations ago. Unfortunately college professors still believe in it.
Deregulation at the national level makes sense. Get government out of it. nIf it was true dereg, it would let us focus on the real issue: too much government involvement.
People fear an SBC/Comcast monopoly. In a true free market, monopolies don't exist. Only authorities can enforce them. That's where your local government finds the blame.
SBC is given monopoly-rights through your local government. End that. Let anyone pay to run their lines. Twisted pair, coax, fiber, whatever. The infrastructure cost is huge, but it'll be offered to large businesses first. Then to smaller. Then to households.
I'm nearly 100% wireless myself. GPRS with my server-side compression is a dream. I'm posting from my h6315 right now. It's perfect. No Spyware, no IE, no concern for D/L speeds -- just information when I need it. Take DSL/cable/T1 monopolies and stick them in your cornholes. 28.8k wireless is all I ever need.
Keep craving high speed for whatever reason (porn, warez, music). I get all that through buying it and saving the headaches. I say deregulate federally, and then focus on local deregulation, too. DSL and cable are 100% tax supported when you see what local support is needed to keep the infrastructure going. I'm sick of it. I save $1000+/year by avoiding it. You keep debating a dead debate -- deregulate in one area and 700 other regulations pop up. Re-regulate and taxes/fees go up.
I'm done with it. Wired is dead for me. I'm paying $60/month for unlimited calls, data, and I have WiFi on my phone if I desperately need it (used it once). No desktop, no laptop, no need for your tax-funded, government-enforced monopoly.
I read/post on /. using my HP h6315 PDA phone using GPRS.
Between small fonts and this, I'm screwed!
Go figure, a government protected monopoly needs more time, more money, and more people to fix a recurring problem.
I call shens on NASA.
Don't you mean 60,000 people hired in India? :)
...blame our state and federal governments.
Excessive regulations, ridiculous wage requirements, forced benefits, excessive taxation and inflation of the currency all combine to create a country that just can't compete.
Seriously consider moving to a free market like Dubai if you're facing a pink slip. Lots of high paying IT jobs in that freedom-loving city.
We got a call today from Amex about our card possibly having unauthorized use at DunkinDonuts.com
Funny thing is we would probably shop there. All nicotine and caffeine diet and all.
I'm in the retail and wholesale business. You don't get what you pay for, and never have.
You get what you invest. Buying anything involves more than money up front. It involves research, building a relationship with a sales staff, building a relationship with a tech staff, and following through with what your original intentions were.
Most of my consulting customers who have problems could have easily have been fixed if they invested a tiny bit more time in researching what their short term needs are. Come on, we pay $100 a month for cable TV. $100 per month for a quality laptop (over its 2 year lifetime) isn't much.
Buying a machine today for web/office apps is easy. 6 months later hoping to run CAD or video editing or whatever is where you'll find you did not invest wisely. A little more time spent researching on your own or communicating with your VAR about long term intentions would save you months or years of frustrations.
In the end, though, buying direct from Dell gets you what you deserve.
Thankfully that's fewer tax dollars spent on a program that is easily funded by private dollars. We've seen numerous slashdot articles in recent months that prove that our public dollars should no longer be used for advancing scientific studies outside of our atmosphere.
I'd like to see Congress draft a few bills canceling the old laws on the books that prevent private companies from spending their dollars finding new ways to space.
Virgin Galactic, anyone?
You knowingly are purchasing the vehicle as-is. If you are unsure of what they are putting in there, then don't buy it. No violation was performed.
If government forces these items on us, then we should fight that monopoly force called government. If a private manufacturer wants to push us on it, we can tell them to shove it and not buy their product.
Our medical industry is a monopoly. Schools have been threatened to keep the number of medical graduates down, which lowers the supply of doctors, hence the price goes up. Free market economics (a la Mises) is in action here.
s ub mit.y=0&&q=health
A ht tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH %3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A65dad07a461e3427%3B& domains=lewrockwell.com&q=health+care&sitesearch=l ewrockwell.com
Then, you have a federal bureaucracy which forces employers to pay medical coverage for their employees. Forcing anyone to do anything increases costs (the insurance companies love the idea of forced coverage).
Then, you remove any semblence of tort limits and allow radical injury lawsuits which make it even more expensive.
Then, you increase premiums by requiring coverage by Medicare (which means private individuals are paying for the public welfare).
Then, you force hospitals to cover anyone, whether or not they have health insurance. Premiums go up.
No one makes money in the industry anymore, except for the lawyers. And who gets elected to office? Lawyers. How many doctors are in office? The on that I am aware of is Dr. Ron Paul of Texas, the M.D. And he votes AGAINST all the corporate welfare that goes into these industries in the end.
The free market DOES work for health care. We're just pretending to ignore the facts that are out there.
http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&submit.x=0&
http://www.google.com/custom?cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3
This is what we need -- more government intrusion into the free market. Tax payer dollars can never do efficiently what private dollars can do in so many cases.
I hate to see this happen -- how many ISPs will initially get badly hurt only for the public to find out that the public wireless network won't handle the bandwidth.
If my ISP gave me the same service as my city clerk's office did, I'd dump it.
That's a good question, and I hate the term "Aggressive" sports but it really is so widely used in my industries. Our shop(s) sell skateboards (no longer "Alternative" as we used to call it), paintball, punk rock music (not the kind you can buy at most record shops), and some BMX products.
Aggressive is a lame description, but that is what our industry likes to call itself. I prefer calling my shop a dirty hole in the ground, beware the bathroom.
As a small retailer who owns two stores (Music related and Aggressive Sports related), I am very open about being anti-RFID within the products I carry. Should a supplier offer RFID within the POP/POS merchandising structure, I'll refuse it.
As such, I've cut back as much as I can from the Targets and Wal*Marts and other large chains, instead attempting to find smaller "Ma and Pa" shops that offer similiar merchandise. In today's market, you'd think these stores are hard to find, but I've actually found the opposite.
I've been able to buy vacuum cleaners cheaper than at the mass goods stores, TVs and DVD players as well. Found razor blades and shampoo and other items at stores that won't desire RFID or other tracking mechanisms, and I found them cheaper than I would have purchased them from the large chain stores or grocery stores.
Look around your community and find retailers who have no reason to jump on the RFID bandwagon. Do you use your "Preferred Shopper" card? You're already giving up your privacy. Do you buy online? You're already giving up your privacy. Do you give your phone number to a store when they ask for it when closing a sale? Bye bye privacy.
If you want more privacy, shop where stores provide it. Don't use your credit cards or write a check (the information can get deposited into a database), pay cash. Don't get "zero percent financing for 2 years" because you'll end up having those purchases tracked by who knows how many marketing firms.
Your choice for privacy is up to you. If you care about it, the power to keep your information away from prying eyes is readily available in even the smallest towns.
The first amendment is to protect political speech, or the ability to criticise government without fear of getting locked up in a gulag.
The first amendment is specifically aimed at preventing government from trampling on a right that is inherent in every human -- one that is God-given or natural depending on your theism or lack of it. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Our founding fathers would have not cried out against anything our governments do today, they would have rebelled again, spilled the blood of many, and stood firm against tyranny. In fact, they did this. When the U.S.'s greatest tyrant Abe Lincoln attempted to control the People, millions seceeded to form a new union of individual States, and were ultimately destroyed for their free thinking.
Most of the people on slashdot don't understand that campaign finance is a free speech issue. http://www.realcampaignreform.org/ attempted to fight this issue. The average slashdotter is very authoritarian, and doesn't understand that campaign finance would do NO harm (even if Al-Qaeda openly financed a campaign) if you shackle the hands of government by limiting the scope of their power.
Wrong. If P2P is speech, it means the federal government may not restrict it.
That is what I said. Re-read my original post that you quoted. When I said "has no mandate to restrict it" it means may not restrict it. Duh.
Wrong. State governments may not enact laws which violate people's rights under the federal constitution.
No, sir, you did not read again. The State governments may enact laws that they are not provided for to the federal government and are not considered again natural right. I reiterated this in another reply.
Wrong. See above.
Again, you fail to read and think about my reply. If P2P is speech, it can not be regulated or restricted or tax. If it is not speech, it is not within the grasp of the federal government, therefor it MAY be regulated by the States or the People, if desired.
We agree on every point, yet you seem to think we don't. Puzzling.
I completely agree, and my original post didn't convey the intent I had in offering a second view if P2P was not "speech." Even if P2P isn't speech, it still doesn't seem to be an area that the federal government has a mandate to restrict, regulate, tax, or otherwise deny. If P2P is something other than speech, the States should have a right to restrict it or let the People do it.
My apologies to the confusion!
This is a big reason why anarchocapitalists (and most libertarians) are anti-democracy: in a democracy, power tends to trickle up to the connected few who can say they have the mandate of the many.
This country was founded on a Constitution that limits the power of the majority. 51% of the country could vote to kill the other 49%, and the Constitution does not allow them to. Don't believe the hype presented by Democrats and Republicans alike, the only mandate they have is for powers specifically delegated to them by the Constitution. Those powers are small, not wide reaching, and very limited in scope.
Living document it is not. If we are to return to personal responsibility, we need to disrupt the current authoritarian control of the federal government.
Our Constitution in the U.S. prevents Congress from making any law infringing on our natural freedom of speech. To me, P2P is communication, which is speech. Therefore, the federal government has no mandate to restrict it.
Our 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution allows the State and/or the People to cover anything the federal government can not. Should California desire to restrict P2P, it should be able to. If you disagree with California's take on this restriction, you can move to Arizona or Delaware, or another state that doesn't have such a restriction.
I'm a firm believer that State governments should be manacled by the Constitution as well, and in my perfect world the State would be just as restricted in making laws against speech. But nonetheless, I'd rather see bad laws at the State level rather than the federal level.
Keep the goons in Congress restricted from making laws, and you'll find almost everyone is happier.