I know the Constitution. I see two things in the Constitutional quote above that don't exist in the laws we have today covering patents, copyright and trademarks:
by securing for limited times
and
to authors and inventors
Patents are for authors and inventors. The fact that are sold away to lawyers and patent holding groups is outrageous. Limited times doesn't mean decades or lifetimes.
It looks like Congress needs to first pass a law mandating that all political candidates do a thorough class on studying the Constitution, pay for dictionaries to explain phrases such as "Congress shall make no law..." and maybe even look over a history of every fascist and socialist regime and why they always fail.
Not one of these laws falls under any Congressional power as given to them by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been distorted and stretched as far as imaginable, considering the intent of the clause was to give the Feds the power to keep the states from restricting trade between each other. Instead, we're seeing it used to help the Feds restrict trade completely, or to enhance trade of their friends/cronies with subsidies or monopoly power.
Congress has done so much damage, and it will only continue. Don't think a major change in party numbers or voting for a third party will help it -- we've lost the war again tyranny, and we have only one thing to look forward to: the continued rape we call democracy.
Bring back, at the least, a federalist representative republic where states compete with one another for the best talent, and the feds can do nothing but look on with empty pockets.
There is no right to do anything with anyone else's property or for them to provide a service they don't want to.
On the other hand, an openly competitive market generally won't see companies trying to reduce services or increase fees -- competition is what gives consumers what they want at the price they're willing to pay.
If we allow our government to regulate the Internet, you better believe the market will be disturbed by enough regulations that we WILL see restrictions such as these -- regulations always serve the interests of the now mandated monopolies instead of the end consumers.
If a few big ISPs decide they want to restrict services for certain users -- let them! The little ISPs will gain enough business to give them a nice profit. Seems like a win-win to me.
Bandwidth speed does not matter -- latency is the key to a happy user. These two do NOT have to go hand in hand, though.
I started (back in the BBS days about 21 years ago) at the age of 30 with a 300 baud modem, and quickly jumped to a 1200 baud modem. I took in information quickly (of course, a young mind is a sponge). My phone bills were $300+ per month -- requiring me to work.
I transitioned to modem's fastest and then transitioned to ISDN. The ISDN's latency was intense -- everything was amazing, comparable to the few T1's I had worked with up to that point.
I was the first of a very select group of DSL (IDSL) testers in Illinois before it really hit. I believe Michigan had it first but I had a consistent 144kbps up/dn connection and it was QUICK. Not as snappy as the ISDN, but download speeds were over double. Web sites, though, were not as snappy.
I switched over to ADSL and the snappiness went down but the downloads went up. Then SDSL, then cable modem, to where I am today -- cell phone dial up.
I just switched to T-Mobile's EDGE network. I get a consistent 150kbps down and 40kbps up from my PDA/laptop bluetooth tethered to my t809 phone. The latency sucks. The bandwidth is just about perfect, though.
I still download, upload, blog, e-mail, browse, etc. I have access to a T1 (at a customer's office) and an OC3 (also at a customer's office). Even though my PDA and my laptop both support WiFi, I stay on my bluetooth 150kbps connection -- just to keep things simple and keep battery life UP.
I've spoken with users of all sorts -- laymen and power users -- and they all tend to agree. Faster response is better than faster downloads. This is untrue for the younger users with time on their hands: they NEED fast downloads for BitTorrent and porn. Once you become part of the grind, you want quality web views with quick response times. I've switched some clients from high bandwidth DSL to low bandwidth DSL that offered lower latencies. They're MUCH happier.
FWIW, the order of need in my life:
1. Be available everywhere (EDGE/GPRS is close) 2. Have a low latency (EDGE/GPRS does not have this) 3. Have a decent download speed (EDGE/GPRS has this) 4. Be priced in an unlimited transfer package (EDGE/GPRS has this)
The only thing my current connection needs is a better latency. This will come with time, I hope. As for VoIP and the like, who cares? My cell phone bill is around US$100 per month -- offering unlimited everything. This price will only go DOWN over time, so I believe the phone companies are too little, too late.
Yes, you, the voter. You've allowed this to happen in every vote you made for an authoritarian politician -- I can name ONE that has followed their oath (Dr. Ron Paul of Texas http://house.gov/paul )
The telecommunications companies are regulated by Congress, illegally and unconstitutionally. Communication is speech. Speech is an inherent right all humans share and can not be infringed by any government.
You give them the power to regulate, they'll make it their power to control in their favor. Initially that favor is only financial -- take care of their nepotism and cronies. Eventually they turn to "help the needy" when the regulations for the needy really only help the monopolies they've created. In the end, the control is about power -- absolute power over the minions.
Don't don the tinfoil hat, it isn't necessary. Just see that every empire has its day, and the ones most responsible are those who elected, not those who were elected.
I vote only for myself -- each and every line of each and every ballot. In my mind, I win. I picked the candidate best suited to represent my family and I.
The most important information for a company such as Google is not from any information stores that Google will display publicly in a search response. It isn't from databases or PDFs or HTML files or any of the like.
In my opinion, the most important information is that which is contained in private e-mails. Many users are not weary in the least to tell other users very private ideas, thoughts and connections.
Google has harvesting engines that can associate words, thoughts and connections better that previous generations of their code, and this is used primarily to help advertisers associate their products and services with the as many different keywords as they possibly can.
Websites are generally static, but e-mail is always changing. Even the busiest blogger might change their site 3 times a day, a news site might change it 20 times, but an e-mail user could send and receive dozens. Imagine tying in all of a user's e-mails together to find insight into what they want and like and need.
At this point, is Google sorting through our e-mails at gmail? I'd say no. I don't think this will last -- and AOL's e-mail system is gigantic. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low, but it is still massive data. On top of that, the noise that does exist (spam) may help Google implement better anti-spam routines in gmail.
Of course, I could be all wrong, but I've been studying Google for years now, and nothing they do surprises me. Everything they've been up to has been unique in how they attack their problems, and I do believe that their desire to catalog everything is true. I've said for over 15 years that the future is not products or services but information. The right company that can aggregate and align information for every user (consumer or producer) will be the wealthiest company in history.
If you need me to translate it down further, try this: I know that sounds great in the 9 seconds it took you to actually think that up, but it's a really stupid way to build a "perfect society" if you bother to put some more thought into it... Ie, discouraging invention is a pretty piss-poor first step on the road to utopia. You may not like our patent system... but the concepts of patents are incredibly useful and valuable to society as a whole.
I'm a businessman. I've had over 10 businesses in 18 years, all but 1 were successful. Not a single business relied on patents, and in some situations I likely could have profited from protecting some processes. I don't see a benefit for society in any monopoly -- especially monopolies granted from government. Society benefits from voluntary cooperation and voluntary trade, not coercion and force.
There are volumes of text on the bad parts of patents -- all of them point to how patents don't make people innovate, they make people lazy. Invent, patent, stop inventing. The areas with the fewest patents tend to be the areas with the most stable products at the best prices.
Is it better to support the little guy versus the big guy in any patent brawl?
Not for me. Patents are scummy ways of avoiding competition. In my non-existant "utopia" I would never accept them -- don't invent if you can't compete with what you invent. Someone else will come out with the same idea soon enough.
For many geeks, their careers probably rest on companies that have many patents. Yet how much quicker would technology progress if we were able to perfect the imperfect and not have to wait a decade or two for a patent to expire? How many geeks here on slashdot that have been part of a team that discovered a patented process would continue to research and develop new products because they love the process, not just the endgame?
I continue to work on new ideas and new processes for my business, some of them that I openly share with my competition. Sure, business procedures may not be patented, but why not? Why can I patent a keyboard style on a cell phone but I can't patent how I lay out my retail store or how I handle customer complaints?
I don't support either party in this lawsuit, and in the end, only the lawyers win. Guess who pays?
I like your thought process here. Take it further, but contemplate no government.
We live in an as-is world because government sets low standards. They're years behind the market and I believe trade is hindered by the regulations.
Expecting a working product could be an optional in a free market. eBay is a key example. You can buy as-is for cheap, but your price goes up as the guarantees do. Ever notice how contractual some auctions are?
Consumers seems to be less informed now that price is the only concern.
I don't do business with the Sauds, I said Dubai. Dubai is the most free city in the world.
The pro-State Middle East regime want US dollars as the Fed inflation funds the Middle East policy. Many Middle East company prefer gold and other currency over the US dollar in recent months.
My business is signing into long term agreements. I am 100% open and honest with my customers about my beliefs, and they like it. You work with going contracts, I bet. I work to find the loopholes.
Many of the most radical Islam groups DO hate Freedom, MTV and Christians...go read the passages in the Koran about "infidels"
Half my family is Muslim. Your states is a blatant lie. Dittoheads crow the same mantras, I guess.
When the USD crashes and oil prices hit US$85/bbl, you'll change your tune.
Based on your slightly thawed theory, if I purchased item X. Now it is possible that 1 out of every 1,000,000 has a defect that might be potentially harmful. So, if I am the unfortunate individual who gets that one and suffer serious injury the blame is on the retailer not the manufacturer? This makes no sense at all. You, as a retailer, cannot be responsible for testing every unit you sale and you would actually be more likely to get in trouble if people found out because they would say you are selling used merchandise as new.
Actually, my retail stores sell paintball markers ("guns") and skateboards. We have a very strong liability insurance policy (300% more than standard) and we test EVERY ITEM. We sell our products for almost 15-20% more than more retailers and 25% more than online merchants. Our customers know we sell a quality product and back it up as safe.
Amazon doesn't want to see themselves liable for bad product, but if the retailer doesn't care, why should the manufacturer? If I, as a retailer, receive many bad products of the same SKU, I sue the manufacturer. I've sued 3 (or threatened to) and received due compensation. Other stores just took the loss. Retail is moving into the toilet because no one is accepting responsibility for what they carry and sell -- not the manufacturers, not the distributors, not the retailers.
Yes, I am more expensive, and yes, we care more. I also expect to outlast many dotcoms and retailers who only care for the ONE sale -- I want a lifetime of sales from my customers, and I will fight hard to get it.
I believe Sony IS responsible but so is the retailer for not setting a standard with their suppliers. I used to sell CDs to my customers but stopped -- not because of dwindling profits but because of dwindling quality. The minute I received punk rock CDs without the CD logo stamped on them, I knew the market was over. I didn't want to support badly made products.
Any retailer can buy liability insurance fairly cheaply. I think we pay maybe $5000 or $6000 a year for a multi-million dollar policy. Sony can also do the same. The insurers then can take the brunt of the reparations, and if a company has many claims, they'll lose the policy and they'll lose the ability to sell products. It seems to me that the free market solutions are better than the legal regulations and mandates.
Your definition of speech is somewhat all-encompassing. If I were to want to "express" myself by taking pictures of naked children (without their knowledge, perhaps) and display them on billboards throughout the country your argument would permit that. You base your argument on some sort of arbitrary freedom that you think you have as a member of this country. Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted that freedom.
You picked one of maybe 5 places where I don't have a good response -- yet. I do believe that if you are taking secret pictures of naked children on your property, you likely DO own the right to those pictures. In my free market utopia (note that I don't believe in utopias), I would have to say that I would not take my children onto anyone's property without an agreement that they won't be taking private video, pictures or record our conversations. I understand that this isn't a perfect reply, but the naked children picture taking debate comes up SO OFTEN that I continue to work on my reply:) In the Constitution, a property owner DOES have the right to take pictures of anyone on that property without warning. See the 9th and 10th Amendments.
In fact, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right (and the power) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states
Wrong. The Commerce clause was written specifically to prevent the individual states from restricting trade. The original founders never intended Congress to restrict trade -- in fact, most of them actually said that we should never have alliances or entanglements with other countries. Trade with all, prosper with all. The Commerce clause is badly abused.
I also happen to know that you do believe that the Constitution is void, because you mentioned on your blog (http://anarcap.blogspot.com/) that you were burning your "Cato pocket Constitution" and replacing it "with a real pro-freedom guide: Champions of Freedom from the Mises Institute
I'm pro-Constitution, actually, but I am anti-State. I made that comment because Cato aligns themselves with the Constitution on their face, but behind your back they attack it at ever chance they get, it seems. A Constitution published by Cato is worthless, in my opinion, unless that Constitution is upheld as the true letter of the law for government.
Coming from that standpoint, your posturing is contradictory because you believe the government can restrict trade during time of war, but that the government itself is based upon a void document and doesn't have any power at all. So which is it? Do you believe the government can restrict trade during war, which means they can restrict trade at any time, or do you believe the government shouldn't even exist?
You are 100% correct -- in some posts I actually will say (and the end) that I don't believe in the State and am only posturing for those who do.
If our citizens want a Constitutional government, they should stick to it, and I will listen. If they don't want one, I will live outside of the law and outside of their rules. The citizens need to make a decision, so I know how to live, but they can't.
I will never accept a government that fights undeclared wars. If we could agree to a truly Constitutionally-limited government, I WILL accept a government that defers to the minority decision of an individual except when that individual commits an act of physical force against another person, or violates a contract.
Sorry for the confusion, thanks for holding me to my beliefs:)
Just for the record, I agree with the rest of your post. However, this isn't a mere violation of contract. You see, a contract was never made. In this case, the user refused to "sign" the "contract" (although I'm not really agreeing that a EULA is a valid contract...). Despite the fact that the user did not enter into a contract, Sony still "trespassed" on their system. Honestly, this case could be prosecuted in a myriad of ways in a criminal court. It could be considered trespassing, vandalism, espionage, deceptive trade practices, and several more outlandish violations of the law.
I had about 5 similar replies, but I'll only reply to one (for now).
I believe, fully, that the contract between a consumer and a manufacturer should actually be created through the retail outlet. I'm not talking about a "de facto" type agreement that is binding always and every time. I mean a contract that basically stipulates that what I am buying will do no harm without warning me, unless I am at fault for using the item incorrectly. If it does, we have the retailer to go after.
I've spoken with 5 free market law groups (one being http://www.ij.org/ ) and from what I can tell, we should be suing the retailer, not Sony. The retailer has sold a product that was unsafe for the purchasing party, and the retailer should be responsible.
The reason? Retailers (I own 2 stores) should check their product before selling it -- IF the contract with the purchaser stipulates this. In a free market, I believe we'd see such stipulations. In a heavily regulated one, government has allowed everyone to be protected EXCEPT the consumer. In cses where the consumers are hurt in large numbers, they have almost no ability to find restitution.
I'm surprised with your oversimplification of the concept of freedom. Saying we can form a militia to protect ourselves is irresponsible. One of the historical reasons for government is to protect its citizens from enemies both forgein and domestic.
I agree with you! A militia is a great way to keep our people strong and able. A militia prevents us from running around the globe trying to instill through force a system that came through voluntary cooperation (over time). Government is supposed to defend our borders, yes, but they're doing the opposite -- they're attacking hundreds of countries (TODAY) and the People are hated all over the world.
I would argue that declaring math of any kind as a munition is silly, but your argument about that government doesn't have an obligation to try to protect us against dangerous information being transferred is equally irrational.
This is the slippery slope towards censorship and tyranny. Once information is printed on paper and in the eyes of a few dozen people, consider it not top secret any longer. In fact, I believe that our government should be 100% transparent to the People, and this means having NO secrets in government. Our most secret weapons have fallen into the hands of enemies through our government's backdoor deals. Remember Iran-Contra? Remember Afghanistan-Russia? We did that, our government, us. It is fair for a government of the People to trade with the enemy, but not the People? Huh?
By your standard, it would be okay to give information to a foreign entity that has openly declared hostilities against the United States. I encourage you to continue to fight for freedom, but doing so blindly, without considering the complexities of an international community is damaging to the cause of freedom
The foreign entity hates us for our actions against people they are aligned with. I would expect no less.
I do business all over the world, and am starting a business in Dubai and in Eastern Europe. These "enemies" don't hate freedom or Christians or MTV, they hate the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of murders we committed in the name of our People. If you've never BEEN to the Middle East or Eastern Europe, don't even start with an opinion that isn't based on facts.
'The Texas attorney general said on Wednesday that he added a new claim to a lawsuit charging Sony BMG Music Entertainment with violating the state's laws on deceptive trade practices by hiding 'spyware' on its compact discs
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
The way I see it, Sony breached a contract. This is easily resolved in court, and anyone who had their contract breached by Sony should go ahead and file an independent lawsuit (not a class action lawsuit). You can hire a local attorney and move forward.
Wait, it is costly to sue a big company? Might that be due to the laws created in your state? Might that be due to the lawyers in control of the operation of the law?
No matter how often you lose, you will continue to lose. The system isn't by the People for the People any more. We're living in a country where the system is so powerful, only the powerful have rights. Let's ignore the state's concerns in this situation -- they're only going to find themselves stronger. They're going to fight Sony with millions of taxpayer dollars, and if they win, the taxpayers won't see a cent, but a bunch of state lawyers and Sony lawyers will be wealthier.
Step back. Look at the problem. The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.
Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
What Sony did was bad, but if contract law was written clearly and concisely, we'd have ways to defend ourselves cheaply and efficiently. The law is a mockery of justice today, and there is ZERO way for any individual or small group to win in the long run.
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
Remember 9/11, dada? Ordinary people can attack us any day of the week. It doesn't need to be the country of Iran formally declaring war on us.
I do remember 9/11.
Iran did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. A group of people angry about our murdering 500,000 children in the Middle East attacked us. They died in that attack. We never found their top leaders, even after hundreds of billions of dollars were spent. Game over, move on.
I don't see how one attack killing 3000 people in response to our attacks killing 500,000+ should infringe on my right to trade with whomever I want to and express myself in any way that I want to -- as long as I don't directly hurt someone or their property in the ACT of trading or expressing.
Your personal freedom stops where your actions begin to infringe on the rights of others. Selling munitions plans to Iran would greatly jeopardize the right to life that Americans enjoy.
Americans have the right to arms. Defend yourself. Form a militia in your town. Learn to love your neighbors, and to be fair to other people. Iran has no power to attack us, and they already have all the munitions plans they need. Iran has the right to self defense just as we do, and I have no problem with every country being equally capable in defending themselves against tyrants. I'm guessing you have a cruel murderer in the family, maybe one stationed in Iraq, eh?
When we declare war against Iran, I'll accept a closing of trade. Then, and only then, will I have a concern about Iran. Until then, I'm happy to let others trade with them, it only makes our country financially stronger and friendlier.
Or do you somehow believe people be able to send munitions plans to Iran in the name of free speech?
I do. I should be able to trade with whomever I want to trade, without restrictions by the State. That's what freedom means. If we had open trade and didn't stick our noses in other countries' business, we wouldn't be living under fear of restribution.
Nonetheless, I do believe that the Feds can restrict trade by declaring war. They didn't declare war on Iran, or Iraq or Afghanistan or Bosnia or Vietnam, so trading with those people is fine.
Speech is not just words out of your mouth, speech and expression is everything you do -- how you express yourself. I should be able to express my favorite political candidate in an unlimited way with my words, my voice and my money. I should be able to burn flags, dance, and even wear a dress if I want to. That is what freedom is about.
Last I recall, there are about 201 Democrats (and 1 Socialist?) in Congress. This isn't a republican versus democrat issue, this is an issue used to make both authoritarian parties in Congress more powerful, along with the Executive Branch. It is the Feds versus the States and the Feds versus the People. I wouldn't say Dubya (or Clinton or anyone else) is alone in violating the rights they're precluded from violating.
I can't believe that few people see the flagrant violation of the 1st amendment in restricting expression and speech when government prevents code from crossing borders. Even without looking into COnstitutionally protected actions, why do you allow your government to make these victimless-crime laws? You can't stop code from crossing borders (not even in China). If the code does leave this country, it has hurt no one in the process. If some madman uses a Windows password cracking tool to steal a password and hurt someone, it is called trespass and there are already laws governing it.
Anyone still supporting the two big parties in this country is continuing to get what they deserve, I believe. There is no slippery slope of tyranny anymore, they're over the cliff and falling straight down.
The minute I read this commentary I thought of a way to do this: LEDs blinking randomly and being matched up by robots as their own. I read the article second, and guess what? That isn't how this works, but it seems similar. In fact, I think they should just put together a basic infrared (invisible) LED, make the robot blink it at a really complex pattern, and if it reads that blinking in a mirror, it not only knows that it is itself, but it also knows how far away it is. LEDs can transmit tens of thousands of cycles of on/off patterns, right? I guess another robot could read this LED, perform an act, and send the same message back, making the original robot believe it's looking in a mirror farther away, but there are ways to fix that (multiple LEDs at a set distance).
I call shens on this self aware robot. Can you do that?
Self awareness is more than seeing a pattern you know you are doing and realizing its you doing it. Self awareness to me means "I know I exist" not just "Hey! That's me!"
Scientists reinvent the same wheel as always, and then say how it will save society. Reason? Finding investors/grants.
I think the 90% of the world that doesn't like obsessing with security would disagree with you about lassez-faire and how well it is handling identity theft and other criminal conduct that has exploded thanks to the internet. My dad *deserves* legal protections from phishing attacks (a specific example: banks should be required to guarantee client accounts... that is WHAT A BANK IS!!!). And a small business should have their online transactions safe from remote fraud (with banks again being held responsible for THEIR end of any fraudulent transaction). Doing so means legally-defined minimum standards and coverages for financial institutions.
Actually, a bank is there to store your valuable money, and that's all it is to do. A mortgage company is for home loans, a personal line of credit company is for credit cards. Banks just store money -- they used to store your gold very safely and give you a note guaranteeing you that gold -- it was called a dollar bill. Banks do not have to guarantee you anything, in fact, in a free market, banks that didn't guarantee you safety would not last as people would put their money in safe banks. Don't ask laws to give you what you can have for the asking.
You're quick to claim that all regulatory activity is a failure, but using your same (flawed) reasoning, technological remedies have also failed to 'solve' ID theft, viruses, trojans, spam, keyloggers, hacking, international abuses, and so on. These problems all remain, and they need a blend of tech and legal remedies. Tech wherever possible, legal to make sure that it is never cheaper/easier to deny or whitewash an expensive problem.
Interesting. I don't use my ID -- ever. I don't use my social security number except when I take payments from a customer and need to fill out a 1099. I don't bank, so I don't worry about banks. I don't have credit cards anymore. Why would I worry about identity theft? Everyone that knows me, KNOWS ME. Viruses are solved -- I haven't had one in years. Anyone who gets a virus is to blame, not the virus. Spam, all that? I don't get it either. My public e-mail address here got 2 spam messages last week, and I post my e-mail address for all to see!
We outgrew that silly business-will-self-regulate oversimplification with Love Canal and DDT, if not with child labor.
I'm glad I'm on your foe list, because you speak nonsense, seriously. I don't mean to write any flamebait, but Love Canal was proven a government problem, not a corporate one. The government you so loved made the problem what it is. In fact, in the media publications of the time before the disasters, many companies were warning the school board not to build there. Your government did it, not any big bad corporation.
As for DDT, this is another greenie myth. You might have "learned" some scary myths in your pro-environment rally or in your public school, but it's all just myths.
Don't spew authoritarian rhetoric if you're against my anti-authoritarian rhetoric. We'll just both flag each other -5 and be done with it. I personally like hearing debates against my opinions, but not when it is the same proven MYTHS over and over and over for the last decade. Come up with new things to find false, will you?
The Internet batches of relatively free information is really surprising to me. Not only is the information available freely, but it was created freely. As a blogger and a newsletter writer, I find that I make more money the cheaper my product gets -- even when it hits the limit of zero (my newsletter may actually become a newsletter that pays its readers, though). My question is, how will these things last in the long run when people start realizing their time preference makes writing freely costlier than they had expected?
When things are new and fresh, we take very good care of them -- look at the car you may have bought new. When things age, we tend to take care of them less, or start to look at them with a crooked eye, even. As Wiki and Digital Universe and blogs and all the other good freely made/freely available text starts to age, will there be another generation willing to continue carrying the torch? Or will Google or AOL or MS find ways to subvert the cause, take them over, and add ads all over the place?
I know many sites exists solely on donations -- I should donate to Wiki. Is this enough to keep them going? Do companies that have a vested interest in selling competitive products to Wiki/DU/blogs have a way to control or regulate these writings?
That's my big fear. As an anti-State anarchocapitalist, I just know the day will come when all speech is regulated in some way, and it will be very hard to market our products. The line between what is political speech and what isn't is a fine one -- and the new FEC laws that will come up over the next 3 years will soon be so restrictive that any blog that earns AdSense dollars will likely be restricted in what they can say. This has happened on the radio and in newsprint, I expect it will happen on blogs. When the topic of a blog/wiki could be considered political, expect hammers to drop. Want to talk about Sony? Well, that's political, you can't.
It will be an interesting future, if we can get to it.
I'm not sure if I could ever get behind a law that enforces true de-regulation. If they want to de-regulate old laws, just abolish them. There is ZERO need for new laws. I'm all for a new amendment limiting bills to only 500 words, and another amendment forcing Congress to abolish 3 laws for every 1 bill they propose (even if the bill doesn't pass, the 3 laws get abolished). My final amendment is for Congress to cut $2 out of the budget for every $1 they propose (even if the budget doesn't pass, they must still nuke $2 out of the old one).
without the FCC you would never know when you turn on the TV if the rich prick down the street is broadcasting goatse over all the channels at 5000 watts
Did you read my post? There are 130-ish channels available on UHF and VHS. To broadcast over all 130-ish at 5000 watts would require a million watts or more of constant power, plus an antenna, not including the service to his house and all the other goodies.
Can you really say that a rich guy would want to spend tens of thousand of dollars per hour in broadcasting goatse?
Slashdot Mirror
I know the Constitution. I see two things in the Constitutional quote above that don't exist in the laws we have today covering patents, copyright and trademarks:
by securing for limited times
and
to authors and inventors
Patents are for authors and inventors. The fact that are sold away to lawyers and patent holding groups is outrageous. Limited times doesn't mean decades or lifetimes.
It looks like Congress needs to first pass a law mandating that all political candidates do a thorough class on studying the Constitution, pay for dictionaries to explain phrases such as "Congress shall make no law..." and maybe even look over a history of every fascist and socialist regime and why they always fail.
Not one of these laws falls under any Congressional power as given to them by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been distorted and stretched as far as imaginable, considering the intent of the clause was to give the Feds the power to keep the states from restricting trade between each other. Instead, we're seeing it used to help the Feds restrict trade completely, or to enhance trade of their friends/cronies with subsidies or monopoly power.
Congress has done so much damage, and it will only continue. Don't think a major change in party numbers or voting for a third party will help it -- we've lost the war again tyranny, and we have only one thing to look forward to: the continued rape we call democracy.
Bring back, at the least, a federalist representative republic where states compete with one another for the best talent, and the feds can do nothing but look on with empty pockets.
There is no right to do anything with anyone else's property or for them to provide a service they don't want to.
On the other hand, an openly competitive market generally won't see companies trying to reduce services or increase fees -- competition is what gives consumers what they want at the price they're willing to pay.
If we allow our government to regulate the Internet, you better believe the market will be disturbed by enough regulations that we WILL see restrictions such as these -- regulations always serve the interests of the now mandated monopolies instead of the end consumers.
If a few big ISPs decide they want to restrict services for certain users -- let them! The little ISPs will gain enough business to give them a nice profit. Seems like a win-win to me.
NO.
Bandwidth speed does not matter -- latency is the key to a happy user. These two do NOT have to go hand in hand, though.
I started (back in the BBS days about 21 years ago) at the age of 30 with a 300 baud modem, and quickly jumped to a 1200 baud modem. I took in information quickly (of course, a young mind is a sponge). My phone bills were $300+ per month -- requiring me to work.
I transitioned to modem's fastest and then transitioned to ISDN. The ISDN's latency was intense -- everything was amazing, comparable to the few T1's I had worked with up to that point.
I was the first of a very select group of DSL (IDSL) testers in Illinois before it really hit. I believe Michigan had it first but I had a consistent 144kbps up/dn connection and it was QUICK. Not as snappy as the ISDN, but download speeds were over double. Web sites, though, were not as snappy.
I switched over to ADSL and the snappiness went down but the downloads went up. Then SDSL, then cable modem, to where I am today -- cell phone dial up.
I just switched to T-Mobile's EDGE network. I get a consistent 150kbps down and 40kbps up from my PDA/laptop bluetooth tethered to my t809 phone. The latency sucks. The bandwidth is just about perfect, though.
I still download, upload, blog, e-mail, browse, etc. I have access to a T1 (at a customer's office) and an OC3 (also at a customer's office). Even though my PDA and my laptop both support WiFi, I stay on my bluetooth 150kbps connection -- just to keep things simple and keep battery life UP.
I've spoken with users of all sorts -- laymen and power users -- and they all tend to agree. Faster response is better than faster downloads. This is untrue for the younger users with time on their hands: they NEED fast downloads for BitTorrent and porn. Once you become part of the grind, you want quality web views with quick response times. I've switched some clients from high bandwidth DSL to low bandwidth DSL that offered lower latencies. They're MUCH happier.
FWIW, the order of need in my life:
1. Be available everywhere (EDGE/GPRS is close)
2. Have a low latency (EDGE/GPRS does not have this)
3. Have a decent download speed (EDGE/GPRS has this)
4. Be priced in an unlimited transfer package (EDGE/GPRS has this)
The only thing my current connection needs is a better latency. This will come with time, I hope. As for VoIP and the like, who cares? My cell phone bill is around US$100 per month -- offering unlimited everything. This price will only go DOWN over time, so I believe the phone companies are too little, too late.
Yes, you, the voter. You've allowed this to happen in every vote you made for an authoritarian politician -- I can name ONE that has followed their oath (Dr. Ron Paul of Texas http://house.gov/paul )
The telecommunications companies are regulated by Congress, illegally and unconstitutionally. Communication is speech. Speech is an inherent right all humans share and can not be infringed by any government.
You give them the power to regulate, they'll make it their power to control in their favor. Initially that favor is only financial -- take care of their nepotism and cronies. Eventually they turn to "help the needy" when the regulations for the needy really only help the monopolies they've created. In the end, the control is about power -- absolute power over the minions.
Don't don the tinfoil hat, it isn't necessary. Just see that every empire has its day, and the ones most responsible are those who elected, not those who were elected.
I vote only for myself -- each and every line of each and every ballot. In my mind, I win. I picked the candidate best suited to represent my family and I.
The most important information for a company such as Google is not from any information stores that Google will display publicly in a search response. It isn't from databases or PDFs or HTML files or any of the like.
In my opinion, the most important information is that which is contained in private e-mails. Many users are not weary in the least to tell other users very private ideas, thoughts and connections.
Google has harvesting engines that can associate words, thoughts and connections better that previous generations of their code, and this is used primarily to help advertisers associate their products and services with the as many different keywords as they possibly can.
Websites are generally static, but e-mail is always changing. Even the busiest blogger might change their site 3 times a day, a news site might change it 20 times, but an e-mail user could send and receive dozens. Imagine tying in all of a user's e-mails together to find insight into what they want and like and need.
At this point, is Google sorting through our e-mails at gmail? I'd say no. I don't think this will last -- and AOL's e-mail system is gigantic. The signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low, but it is still massive data. On top of that, the noise that does exist (spam) may help Google implement better anti-spam routines in gmail.
Of course, I could be all wrong, but I've been studying Google for years now, and nothing they do surprises me. Everything they've been up to has been unique in how they attack their problems, and I do believe that their desire to catalog everything is true. I've said for over 15 years that the future is not products or services but information. The right company that can aggregate and align information for every user (consumer or producer) will be the wealthiest company in history.
Microsoft who?
If you need me to translate it down further, try this: I know that sounds great in the 9 seconds it took you to actually think that up, but it's a really stupid way to build a "perfect society" if you bother to put some more thought into it... Ie, discouraging invention is a pretty piss-poor first step on the road to utopia. You may not like our patent system... but the concepts of patents are incredibly useful and valuable to society as a whole.
I'm a businessman. I've had over 10 businesses in 18 years, all but 1 were successful. Not a single business relied on patents, and in some situations I likely could have profited from protecting some processes. I don't see a benefit for society in any monopoly -- especially monopolies granted from government. Society benefits from voluntary cooperation and voluntary trade, not coercion and force.
There are volumes of text on the bad parts of patents -- all of them point to how patents don't make people innovate, they make people lazy. Invent, patent, stop inventing. The areas with the fewest patents tend to be the areas with the most stable products at the best prices.
Is it better to support the little guy versus the big guy in any patent brawl?
Not for me. Patents are scummy ways of avoiding competition. In my non-existant "utopia" I would never accept them -- don't invent if you can't compete with what you invent. Someone else will come out with the same idea soon enough.
For many geeks, their careers probably rest on companies that have many patents. Yet how much quicker would technology progress if we were able to perfect the imperfect and not have to wait a decade or two for a patent to expire? How many geeks here on slashdot that have been part of a team that discovered a patented process would continue to research and develop new products because they love the process, not just the endgame?
I continue to work on new ideas and new processes for my business, some of them that I openly share with my competition. Sure, business procedures may not be patented, but why not? Why can I patent a keyboard style on a cell phone but I can't patent how I lay out my retail store or how I handle customer complaints?
I don't support either party in this lawsuit, and in the end, only the lawyers win. Guess who pays?
I like your thought process here. Take it further, but contemplate no government.
We live in an as-is world because government sets low standards. They're years behind the market and I believe trade is hindered by the regulations.
Expecting a working product could be an optional in a free market. eBay is a key example. You can buy as-is for cheap, but your price goes up as the guarantees do. Ever notice how contractual some auctions are?
Consumers seems to be less informed now that price is the only concern.
Really?
I don't do business with the Sauds, I said Dubai. Dubai is the most free city in the world.
The pro-State Middle East regime want US dollars as the Fed inflation funds the Middle East policy. Many Middle East company prefer gold and other currency over the US dollar in recent months.
My business is signing into long term agreements. I am 100% open and honest with my customers about my beliefs, and they like it. You work with going contracts, I bet. I work to find the loopholes.
Many of the most radical Islam groups DO hate Freedom, MTV and Christians...go read the passages in the Koran about "infidels"
Half my family is Muslim. Your states is a blatant lie. Dittoheads crow the same mantras, I guess.
When the USD crashes and oil prices hit US$85/bbl, you'll change your tune.
Based on your slightly thawed theory, if I purchased item X. Now it is possible that 1 out of every 1,000,000 has a defect that might be potentially harmful. So, if I am the unfortunate individual who gets that one and suffer serious injury the blame is on the retailer not the manufacturer? This makes no sense at all. You, as a retailer, cannot be responsible for testing every unit you sale and you would actually be more likely to get in trouble if people found out because they would say you are selling used merchandise as new.
Actually, my retail stores sell paintball markers ("guns") and skateboards. We have a very strong liability insurance policy (300% more than standard) and we test EVERY ITEM. We sell our products for almost 15-20% more than more retailers and 25% more than online merchants. Our customers know we sell a quality product and back it up as safe.
Amazon doesn't want to see themselves liable for bad product, but if the retailer doesn't care, why should the manufacturer? If I, as a retailer, receive many bad products of the same SKU, I sue the manufacturer. I've sued 3 (or threatened to) and received due compensation. Other stores just took the loss. Retail is moving into the toilet because no one is accepting responsibility for what they carry and sell -- not the manufacturers, not the distributors, not the retailers.
Yes, I am more expensive, and yes, we care more. I also expect to outlast many dotcoms and retailers who only care for the ONE sale -- I want a lifetime of sales from my customers, and I will fight hard to get it.
I believe Sony IS responsible but so is the retailer for not setting a standard with their suppliers. I used to sell CDs to my customers but stopped -- not because of dwindling profits but because of dwindling quality. The minute I received punk rock CDs without the CD logo stamped on them, I knew the market was over. I didn't want to support badly made products.
Any retailer can buy liability insurance fairly cheaply. I think we pay maybe $5000 or $6000 a year for a multi-million dollar policy. Sony can also do the same. The insurers then can take the brunt of the reparations, and if a company has many claims, they'll lose the policy and they'll lose the ability to sell products. It seems to me that the free market solutions are better than the legal regulations and mandates.
Your definition of speech is somewhat all-encompassing. If I were to want to "express" myself by taking pictures of naked children (without their knowledge, perhaps) and display them on billboards throughout the country your argument would permit that. You base your argument on some sort of arbitrary freedom that you think you have as a member of this country. Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted that freedom.
:) In the Constitution, a property owner DOES have the right to take pictures of anyone on that property without warning. See the 9th and 10th Amendments.
:)
You picked one of maybe 5 places where I don't have a good response -- yet. I do believe that if you are taking secret pictures of naked children on your property, you likely DO own the right to those pictures. In my free market utopia (note that I don't believe in utopias), I would have to say that I would not take my children onto anyone's property without an agreement that they won't be taking private video, pictures or record our conversations. I understand that this isn't a perfect reply, but the naked children picture taking debate comes up SO OFTEN that I continue to work on my reply
In fact, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right (and the power) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states
Wrong. The Commerce clause was written specifically to prevent the individual states from restricting trade. The original founders never intended Congress to restrict trade -- in fact, most of them actually said that we should never have alliances or entanglements with other countries. Trade with all, prosper with all. The Commerce clause is badly abused.
I also happen to know that you do believe that the Constitution is void, because you mentioned on your blog (http://anarcap.blogspot.com/) that you were burning your "Cato pocket Constitution" and replacing it "with a real pro-freedom guide: Champions of Freedom from the Mises Institute
I'm pro-Constitution, actually, but I am anti-State. I made that comment because Cato aligns themselves with the Constitution on their face, but behind your back they attack it at ever chance they get, it seems. A Constitution published by Cato is worthless, in my opinion, unless that Constitution is upheld as the true letter of the law for government.
Coming from that standpoint, your posturing is contradictory because you believe the government can restrict trade during time of war, but that the government itself is based upon a void document and doesn't have any power at all. So which is it? Do you believe the government can restrict trade during war, which means they can restrict trade at any time, or do you believe the government shouldn't even exist?
You are 100% correct -- in some posts I actually will say (and the end) that I don't believe in the State and am only posturing for those who do.
If our citizens want a Constitutional government, they should stick to it, and I will listen. If they don't want one, I will live outside of the law and outside of their rules. The citizens need to make a decision, so I know how to live, but they can't.
I will never accept a government that fights undeclared wars. If we could agree to a truly Constitutionally-limited government, I WILL accept a government that defers to the minority decision of an individual except when that individual commits an act of physical force against another person, or violates a contract.
Sorry for the confusion, thanks for holding me to my beliefs
Just for the record, I agree with the rest of your post. However, this isn't a mere violation of contract. You see, a contract was never made. In this case, the user refused to "sign" the "contract" (although I'm not really agreeing that a EULA is a valid contract...). Despite the fact that the user did not enter into a contract, Sony still "trespassed" on their system. Honestly, this case could be prosecuted in a myriad of ways in a criminal court. It could be considered trespassing, vandalism, espionage, deceptive trade practices, and several more outlandish violations of the law.
I had about 5 similar replies, but I'll only reply to one (for now).
I believe, fully, that the contract between a consumer and a manufacturer should actually be created through the retail outlet. I'm not talking about a "de facto" type agreement that is binding always and every time. I mean a contract that basically stipulates that what I am buying will do no harm without warning me, unless I am at fault for using the item incorrectly. If it does, we have the retailer to go after.
I've spoken with 5 free market law groups (one being http://www.ij.org/ ) and from what I can tell, we should be suing the retailer, not Sony. The retailer has sold a product that was unsafe for the purchasing party, and the retailer should be responsible.
The reason? Retailers (I own 2 stores) should check their product before selling it -- IF the contract with the purchaser stipulates this. In a free market, I believe we'd see such stipulations. In a heavily regulated one, government has allowed everyone to be protected EXCEPT the consumer. In cses where the consumers are hurt in large numbers, they have almost no ability to find restitution.
I'm surprised with your oversimplification of the concept of freedom. Saying we can form a militia to protect ourselves is irresponsible. One of the historical reasons for government is to protect its citizens from enemies both forgein and domestic.
I agree with you! A militia is a great way to keep our people strong and able. A militia prevents us from running around the globe trying to instill through force a system that came through voluntary cooperation (over time). Government is supposed to defend our borders, yes, but they're doing the opposite -- they're attacking hundreds of countries (TODAY) and the People are hated all over the world.
I would argue that declaring math of any kind as a munition is silly, but your argument about that government doesn't have an obligation to try to protect us against dangerous information being transferred is equally irrational.
This is the slippery slope towards censorship and tyranny. Once information is printed on paper and in the eyes of a few dozen people, consider it not top secret any longer. In fact, I believe that our government should be 100% transparent to the People, and this means having NO secrets in government. Our most secret weapons have fallen into the hands of enemies through our government's backdoor deals. Remember Iran-Contra? Remember Afghanistan-Russia? We did that, our government, us. It is fair for a government of the People to trade with the enemy, but not the People? Huh?
By your standard, it would be okay to give information to a foreign entity that has openly declared hostilities against the United States. I encourage you to continue to fight for freedom, but doing so blindly, without considering the complexities of an international community is damaging to the cause of freedom
The foreign entity hates us for our actions against people they are aligned with. I would expect no less.
I do business all over the world, and am starting a business in Dubai and in Eastern Europe. These "enemies" don't hate freedom or Christians or MTV, they hate the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of murders we committed in the name of our People. If you've never BEEN to the Middle East or Eastern Europe, don't even start with an opinion that isn't based on facts.
Let's look at the article:
'The Texas attorney general said on Wednesday that he added a new claim to a lawsuit charging Sony BMG Music Entertainment with violating the state's laws on deceptive trade practices by hiding 'spyware' on its compact discs
Oh, so the state was hurt, and they're the ones who have to go after Sony?
The way I see it, Sony breached a contract. This is easily resolved in court, and anyone who had their contract breached by Sony should go ahead and file an independent lawsuit (not a class action lawsuit). You can hire a local attorney and move forward.
Wait, it is costly to sue a big company? Might that be due to the laws created in your state? Might that be due to the lawyers in control of the operation of the law?
No matter how often you lose, you will continue to lose. The system isn't by the People for the People any more. We're living in a country where the system is so powerful, only the powerful have rights. Let's ignore the state's concerns in this situation -- they're only going to find themselves stronger. They're going to fight Sony with millions of taxpayer dollars, and if they win, the taxpayers won't see a cent, but a bunch of state lawyers and Sony lawyers will be wealthier.
Step back. Look at the problem. The problem is that contract law is too complicated, and you can't fight a contract violation in court without a contract lawyer who likely is part of an organization that wrote the law. Ignore Sony, ignore all terribly written contracts. We need to get to the source of the problem and fix it. Let us return to the days when the law was simple to read, and simple to enforce. Let us return to the days when we could walk up to a court clerk, file a grievance and sue the people who violated the contract, just them and us.
Who is with me in asking for an amendment limiting all laws to one topic, 200 words or less, and only can pass with a signature of the President and a signature of a random person with a 3rd grade education who agrees that even they understand the law?
What Sony did was bad, but if contract law was written clearly and concisely, we'd have ways to defend ourselves cheaply and efficiently. The law is a mockery of justice today, and there is ZERO way for any individual or small group to win in the long run.
FYI, for other anarchocapitalists out there, my solution is true moderated arbitration mechanisms in a free market, not the law or the courts.
Remember 9/11, dada? Ordinary people can attack us any day of the week. It doesn't need to be the country of Iran formally declaring war on us.
I do remember 9/11.
Iran did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. A group of people angry about our murdering 500,000 children in the Middle East attacked us. They died in that attack. We never found their top leaders, even after hundreds of billions of dollars were spent. Game over, move on.
I don't see how one attack killing 3000 people in response to our attacks killing 500,000+ should infringe on my right to trade with whomever I want to and express myself in any way that I want to -- as long as I don't directly hurt someone or their property in the ACT of trading or expressing.
Your personal freedom stops where your actions begin to infringe on the rights of others. Selling munitions plans to Iran would greatly jeopardize the right to life that Americans enjoy.
Americans have the right to arms. Defend yourself. Form a militia in your town. Learn to love your neighbors, and to be fair to other people. Iran has no power to attack us, and they already have all the munitions plans they need. Iran has the right to self defense just as we do, and I have no problem with every country being equally capable in defending themselves against tyrants. I'm guessing you have a cruel murderer in the family, maybe one stationed in Iraq, eh?
When we declare war against Iran, I'll accept a closing of trade. Then, and only then, will I have a concern about Iran. Until then, I'm happy to let others trade with them, it only makes our country financially stronger and friendlier.
Or do you somehow believe people be able to send munitions plans to Iran in the name of free speech?
I do. I should be able to trade with whomever I want to trade, without restrictions by the State. That's what freedom means. If we had open trade and didn't stick our noses in other countries' business, we wouldn't be living under fear of restribution.
Nonetheless, I do believe that the Feds can restrict trade by declaring war. They didn't declare war on Iran, or Iraq or Afghanistan or Bosnia or Vietnam, so trading with those people is fine.
Speech is not just words out of your mouth, speech and expression is everything you do -- how you express yourself. I should be able to express my favorite political candidate in an unlimited way with my words, my voice and my money. I should be able to burn flags, dance, and even wear a dress if I want to. That is what freedom is about.
What does freedom mean to you?
Last I recall, there are about 201 Democrats (and 1 Socialist?) in Congress. This isn't a republican versus democrat issue, this is an issue used to make both authoritarian parties in Congress more powerful, along with the Executive Branch. It is the Feds versus the States and the Feds versus the People. I wouldn't say Dubya (or Clinton or anyone else) is alone in violating the rights they're precluded from violating.
I can't believe that few people see the flagrant violation of the 1st amendment in restricting expression and speech when government prevents code from crossing borders. Even without looking into COnstitutionally protected actions, why do you allow your government to make these victimless-crime laws? You can't stop code from crossing borders (not even in China). If the code does leave this country, it has hurt no one in the process. If some madman uses a Windows password cracking tool to steal a password and hurt someone, it is called trespass and there are already laws governing it.
Anyone still supporting the two big parties in this country is continuing to get what they deserve, I believe. There is no slippery slope of tyranny anymore, they're over the cliff and falling straight down.
The minute I read this commentary I thought of a way to do this: LEDs blinking randomly and being matched up by robots as their own. I read the article second, and guess what? That isn't how this works, but it seems similar. In fact, I think they should just put together a basic infrared (invisible) LED, make the robot blink it at a really complex pattern, and if it reads that blinking in a mirror, it not only knows that it is itself, but it also knows how far away it is. LEDs can transmit tens of thousands of cycles of on/off patterns, right? I guess another robot could read this LED, perform an act, and send the same message back, making the original robot believe it's looking in a mirror farther away, but there are ways to fix that (multiple LEDs at a set distance).
I call shens on this self aware robot. Can you do that?
Self awareness is more than seeing a pattern you know you are doing and realizing its you doing it. Self awareness to me means "I know I exist" not just "Hey! That's me!"
Scientists reinvent the same wheel as always, and then say how it will save society. Reason? Finding investors/grants.
I think the 90% of the world that doesn't like obsessing with security would disagree with you about lassez-faire and how well it is handling identity theft and other criminal conduct that has exploded thanks to the internet. My dad *deserves* legal protections from phishing attacks (a specific example: banks should be required to guarantee client accounts... that is WHAT A BANK IS!!!). And a small business should have their online transactions safe from remote fraud (with banks again being held responsible for THEIR end of any fraudulent transaction). Doing so means legally-defined minimum standards and coverages for financial institutions.
Actually, a bank is there to store your valuable money, and that's all it is to do. A mortgage company is for home loans, a personal line of credit company is for credit cards. Banks just store money -- they used to store your gold very safely and give you a note guaranteeing you that gold -- it was called a dollar bill. Banks do not have to guarantee you anything, in fact, in a free market, banks that didn't guarantee you safety would not last as people would put their money in safe banks. Don't ask laws to give you what you can have for the asking.
You're quick to claim that all regulatory activity is a failure, but using your same (flawed) reasoning, technological remedies have also failed to 'solve' ID theft, viruses, trojans, spam, keyloggers, hacking, international abuses, and so on. These problems all remain, and they need a blend of tech and legal remedies. Tech wherever possible, legal to make sure that it is never cheaper/easier to deny or whitewash an expensive problem.
Interesting. I don't use my ID -- ever. I don't use my social security number except when I take payments from a customer and need to fill out a 1099. I don't bank, so I don't worry about banks. I don't have credit cards anymore. Why would I worry about identity theft? Everyone that knows me, KNOWS ME. Viruses are solved -- I haven't had one in years. Anyone who gets a virus is to blame, not the virus. Spam, all that? I don't get it either. My public e-mail address here got 2 spam messages last week, and I post my e-mail address for all to see!
We outgrew that silly business-will-self-regulate oversimplification with Love Canal and DDT, if not with child labor.
I'm glad I'm on your foe list, because you speak nonsense, seriously. I don't mean to write any flamebait, but Love Canal was proven a government problem, not a corporate one. The government you so loved made the problem what it is. In fact, in the media publications of the time before the disasters, many companies were warning the school board not to build there. Your government did it, not any big bad corporation.
As for DDT, this is another greenie myth. You might have "learned" some scary myths in your pro-environment rally or in your public school, but it's all just myths.
Don't spew authoritarian rhetoric if you're against my anti-authoritarian rhetoric. We'll just both flag each other -5 and be done with it. I personally like hearing debates against my opinions, but not when it is the same proven MYTHS over and over and over for the last decade. Come up with new things to find false, will you?
The Internet batches of relatively free information is really surprising to me. Not only is the information available freely, but it was created freely. As a blogger and a newsletter writer, I find that I make more money the cheaper my product gets -- even when it hits the limit of zero (my newsletter may actually become a newsletter that pays its readers, though). My question is, how will these things last in the long run when people start realizing their time preference makes writing freely costlier than they had expected?
When things are new and fresh, we take very good care of them -- look at the car you may have bought new. When things age, we tend to take care of them less, or start to look at them with a crooked eye, even. As Wiki and Digital Universe and blogs and all the other good freely made/freely available text starts to age, will there be another generation willing to continue carrying the torch? Or will Google or AOL or MS find ways to subvert the cause, take them over, and add ads all over the place?
I know many sites exists solely on donations -- I should donate to Wiki. Is this enough to keep them going? Do companies that have a vested interest in selling competitive products to Wiki/DU/blogs have a way to control or regulate these writings?
That's my big fear. As an anti-State anarchocapitalist, I just know the day will come when all speech is regulated in some way, and it will be very hard to market our products. The line between what is political speech and what isn't is a fine one -- and the new FEC laws that will come up over the next 3 years will soon be so restrictive that any blog that earns AdSense dollars will likely be restricted in what they can say. This has happened on the radio and in newsprint, I expect it will happen on blogs. When the topic of a blog/wiki could be considered political, expect hammers to drop. Want to talk about Sony? Well, that's political, you can't.
It will be an interesting future, if we can get to it.
Interesting article, thanks.
I'm not sure if I could ever get behind a law that enforces true de-regulation. If they want to de-regulate old laws, just abolish them. There is ZERO need for new laws. I'm all for a new amendment limiting bills to only 500 words, and another amendment forcing Congress to abolish 3 laws for every 1 bill they propose (even if the bill doesn't pass, the 3 laws get abolished). My final amendment is for Congress to cut $2 out of the budget for every $1 they propose (even if the budget doesn't pass, they must still nuke $2 out of the old one).
That's about all I can support, law-wise.
without the FCC you would never know when you turn on the TV if the rich prick down the street is broadcasting goatse over all the channels at 5000 watts
Did you read my post? There are 130-ish channels available on UHF and VHS. To broadcast over all 130-ish at 5000 watts would require a million watts or more of constant power, plus an antenna, not including the service to his house and all the other goodies.
Can you really say that a rich guy would want to spend tens of thousand of dollars per hour in broadcasting goatse?