I think that your assumption that the telecom industry would be able to refuse admission to new providers in the absence of government regulation is historically invalid. It takes government power to sustain a monopoly.
As for your claim about crime, I suggest that you look into the crime rates in areas where *guns* have been deregulated (aka concealed carry).
I understand your grief, but let's face it, you're not going to get nice, simple, understandable regulations from the corrupt circus we call a government in the United States of America. Yes, regulations are evil when they are promulgated by corrupt legislators and enforced by corrupt bureaucrats for the benefit of political cronies.
Because the same government that has proved itself irretrievably corrupt in dealing with Intellectual Property will never ever be corrupted by regulated telecoms and internet service providers.
Your "net neutrality people" have shown only that their idealistic solution is "good" according to their own idealistic assumptions. History is full of examples where government regulation, no matter how well-intentioned, has not given the desired results.
Individuals differ in their opinions of what is good for themselves. I say let them seek that which is good for themselves, by their own understanding. I am always in favor of liberty, especially when it is not "convenient" for those who would rule over me.
Unfortunately, due to regulatory capture, it is much more likely that further regulation will end up benefiting the monopolists rather than their competitors.
So the use of government force (taxing some to give "considerations" to others) justifies the further use of government force (to preserve the monopoly of those others), and we all end up paying for it.
You seem to have redefined reality to make it possible to use force to achieve your desired goals without having to suffer the economic and political consequences.
You can declare all the "legal rights" you want, and the Supreme Court might even agree with you, but that does not eliminate the economic cost of those "rights". There is no such thing as a free lunch. Pretending that it is "fair" or "better" to tax some to pay for free lunches for others does not make it so.
Actually, the libertarian solution would work just fine. It just wouldn't necessarily give the result that you wish you could impose by force. If that's a "failure" then it's simply your failure to deal with reality as it is, instead of as you wish it could be, if you could impose your wishes by force.
Yes, telcos have a massive investment in infrastructure, so new providers are at a disadvantage. Using the force of government to try to change that costs everybody more.
Yes, rural customers pay more, because it costs more to serve them. Using the force of government to try to change that costs everybody more.
Multitasking is fine, as long as none of the tasks really requires 100% of your attention. I can switch off surfing blogs and/. and listening to music and playing roguelikes, but when I'm working on a tough bit of program logic, I can't stand to be interrupted for anything. That's when I hide all the other windows so I can concentrate.
I think you're trying to "fix" too much here. It's not that any one organization has more influence than the government, it's that the organizations which benefit from the status quo are more focused on defending it than the ones who are inconvenienced by it. There are strong lobbying groups that support the ridiculous draconian measures that we have seen to protect intellectual property. But those who oppose those measures are not as focused, and so the Congress doesn't see the need to move in their direction.
Lobbying groups are not doing anything inherently wrong. They are protected by the First Amendment (right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances). '
You aren't going to get anywhere by telling Congress to cut their own throats either.
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. The concept is self-contradictory. Can we "fix" the system from within? Sure, as long as we don't resort to stupid solutions like setting up dictators.
There just isn't any interest among politicians in changing the patent system (or copyright either) until they get nice fat juicy campaign contributions from the people who are screwed by the current "intellectual property" regime.
Write to the guy and ask for his terms for licensing the library. If it's not too expensive, well and good. If it's not worth it for your product, you know what to avoid in your own code.
It has to be a town so Senators can bring home the bacon. And then after a few billion are spent on studies and preliminary construction, the same Senators can pull a Happy Harry Reid and insist that their site is no good, it's got to be put somewhere else. Rinse and repeat.
Let's face it, nobody wants the stuff near them. That's what NIMBY means. Nevadans don't trust the government? Welcome to the club. Find another site? Why? The BANANAS will act all butt-hurt no matter where. Let's face it, even if Yucca Mountain isn't the perfect site, it's still a hell of a lot safer than leaving all that crap in pools at reactor sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that your assumption that the telecom industry would be able to refuse admission to new providers in the absence of government regulation is historically invalid. It takes government power to sustain a monopoly.
As for your claim about crime, I suggest that you look into the crime rates in areas where *guns* have been deregulated (aka concealed carry).
Why are you trying to conflate criminal acts like murder with free economic transactions between consenting individuals?
I understand your grief, but let's face it, you're not going to get nice, simple, understandable regulations from the corrupt circus we call a government in the United States of America. Yes, regulations are evil when they are promulgated by corrupt legislators and enforced by corrupt bureaucrats for the benefit of political cronies.
Because the same government that has proved itself irretrievably corrupt in dealing with Intellectual Property will never ever be corrupted by regulated telecoms and internet service providers.
Since murder is not an economic transaction, you are simply being incoherent.
Please forgive me as I read this thread and snicker at the folks who still think Net Neutrality legislation is a good idea.
Your "net neutrality people" have shown only that their idealistic solution is "good" according to their own idealistic assumptions. History is full of examples where government regulation, no matter how well-intentioned, has not given the desired results.
Individuals differ in their opinions of what is good for themselves.
I say let them seek that which is good for themselves, by their own understanding.
I am always in favor of liberty, especially when it is not "convenient" for those who would rule over me.
Unfortunately, due to regulatory capture, it is much more likely that further regulation will end up benefiting the monopolists rather than their competitors.
No it does not work at all. Murder is not an economic transaction. Not even if you pay somebody else to do it.
So the use of government force (taxing some to give "considerations" to others) justifies the further use of government force (to preserve the monopoly of those others), and we all end up paying for it.
You seem to have redefined reality to make it possible to use force to achieve your desired goals without having to suffer the economic and political consequences.
You can declare all the "legal rights" you want, and the Supreme Court might even agree with you, but that does not eliminate the economic cost of those "rights". There is no such thing as a free lunch. Pretending that it is "fair" or "better" to tax some to pay for free lunches for others does not make it so.
Actually, the libertarian solution would work just fine. It just wouldn't necessarily give the result that you wish you could impose by force.
If that's a "failure" then it's simply your failure to deal with reality as it is, instead of as you wish it could be, if you could impose your wishes by force.
Yes, telcos have a massive investment in infrastructure, so new providers are at a disadvantage. Using the force of government to try to change that costs everybody more.
Yes, rural customers pay more, because it costs more to serve them. Using the force of government to try to change that costs everybody more.
Yes, governments write regulations for a reason, the reason just isn't what you wish it would be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Multitasking is fine, as long as none of the tasks really requires 100% of your attention. /. and listening to music and playing roguelikes, but when I'm working on a tough bit of program logic, I can't stand to be interrupted for anything. That's when I hide all the other windows so I can concentrate.
I can switch off surfing blogs and
I think you're trying to "fix" too much here. It's not that any one organization has more influence than the government, it's that the organizations which benefit from the status quo are more focused on defending it than the ones who are inconvenienced by it. There are strong lobbying groups that support the ridiculous draconian measures that we have seen to protect intellectual property. But those who oppose those measures are not as focused, and so the Congress doesn't see the need to move in their direction.
Lobbying groups are not doing anything inherently wrong. They are protected by the First Amendment (right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances). '
You aren't going to get anywhere by telling Congress to cut their own throats either.
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. The concept is self-contradictory.
Can we "fix" the system from within? Sure, as long as we don't resort to stupid solutions like setting up dictators.
There just isn't any interest among politicians in changing the patent system (or copyright either) until they get nice fat juicy campaign contributions from the people who are screwed by the current "intellectual property" regime.
Write to the guy and ask for his terms for licensing the library. If it's not too expensive, well and good.
If it's not worth it for your product, you know what to avoid in your own code.
I don't care how many followers she's got, she's nuts. Classic schizophrenic "religious experience".
No, I didn't miss that part. I guess you missed the part about "...safer than sitting in pools at reactor sites".
There is no place on earth that could meet all the requirements of the BANANAS. If there was, they would change their requirements.
It has to be a town so Senators can bring home the bacon. And then after a few billion are spent on studies and preliminary construction, the same Senators can pull a Happy Harry Reid and insist that their site is no good, it's got to be put somewhere else. Rinse and repeat.
Let's face it, nobody wants the stuff near them. That's what NIMBY means.
Nevadans don't trust the government? Welcome to the club.
Find another site? Why? The BANANAS will act all butt-hurt no matter where. Let's face it, even if Yucca Mountain isn't the perfect site, it's still a hell of a lot safer than leaving all that crap in pools at reactor sites.
So, Harry Reid, how much "encouragement" will you need to use Yucca Mountain? Another trillion or two do it for you?
Cheap crap 30 years ago sounded just as bad as cheap crap now. Good quality audio gear wasn't cheap back then and it's not cheap now.
Oh, that's plenty, thank you. I think you get my analogy just fine.
Hey, you need oxygen to live, right? So why don't you pump your house full of 100% oxygen?