If the right thing to do was illegal, would you hesitate to do it?
There is a short list of people who dared to do what was right, in spite of the fact it was illegal, we tend to call them "heros". There is a very long list of anonymous cowards who didn't, and nobody remembers their names for a reason.
5) Can you play WMA audio bought elsewhere on an iPod? NO (and yes, you can play music bought on iTMS on other players. Is it easy? No, but that wasn't your question was it?
6) If you ____ breaks can you play your legally purchased WMA on an iPod? NO, is this restrictive? YES. And yes, you can play your legally purchased music on another iPod, or any other device. Can you do it easily? No, but that wasn't your question.
7) Does iPod play MP3s? Yes Do other MP3 players ? "De facto monopoly" means you are against "success", which basically proves my point. It doesn't have a monopoly of any sort, because I can go to Walmart, Circuit City, Best Buy (all within blocks of me), and buy any one of a number of MP3 players. My freaking PHONE is an MP3 player. I don't use it as an MP3 player because it sucks.
8) Does iTunes hold a gun to peoples head so that they can Download songs? NO. Does iPods play music not downloaded from iTunes? YES. Again, your question implies that success is bad, which proves my point delightfully. Thank you!
9) No, you don't need iTunes to sync your iPod. It may not be easy, but it is possible.
10) No. You can burn them to CDs and play them using any portable CD Player.
I asked RELEVANT questions, not robot questions. The questions you asked PRESUPPOSE the answer you think you want, when in fact is all anti iPod FUD. iPods and many other devices play MP3s, and can rip CDs to that and other formats. Your questions are all based on ACC files, which I equate to WMA files. However, unlike WMA files ACC files play on all major platforms. Your questions all imply DRMed ACC files should act exactly like unDRMed MP3 and unDRMed WMA files, forgeting that the iPod does indeed play the UNIVERSAL MP3 files just fine.
The problem isn't with Apple, iPod or even ACC, it is the restrictions placed upon Apple to sell music in the first place, namely DRM. This is the same DRM required by the same music industry to sell music by any other music store selling the same music, which won't play on iPods any more than Apple's DRMed ACC won't play on any other device.
I think you have a problem because you are blaming Apple for the situation caused by someone else, namely the *IAA. Instead of attacking Apple, iTMS and iPod because they figured a way to be useful and therefore successful in spite of the restrictions the Music industry placed upon Apple, why not attack the industry responsible for DRM in the first place?
I don't deserve flamebait, because I can see where the problem is, and it isn't with Apple. Apple just figure out an elegant solution to the problem others created, just as it usually does.
The issues you pointed out with your stupid questions are the same reason why Socialism is stupid. It falsely blames success and then tries to punish it, just as a few of your questions implied. You sir, deserve the Flame Bait, but like most you are a Coward.
For those who modded this flame bait. Please answer the following....
1)Can you put MP3s on an iPod? Is that restrictive? 2)Can you put ACC (non-DRM) on an iPod? Is that restrictive? 3)Can Other Music Stores offer music in MP3 or non-DRMed ACC music?
4)iPods do not need iTMS music to function, do they?
So, the problem isn't with iPods or the music you put on them, it is based SOLELY upon iTMS and/or DRM. Who required DRM for iTMS? Apple?
The fact is, the ONLY reason why Apple, iPod, iTMS combo is under assail is because of success. Nobody is complaining about "plays (sort of) for sure" and the Zune, or Rio Players not playing ACC, or whatever player only playing WMA or whatever.
Again, nobody would care if it weren't successful. So, the only reason they are going after Apple, is because (yes, BECAUSE) it is successful, not because of some other altruistic idea.
This is part and parcel to SOCIALISM, where success needs "regulation" in the form of government intervention, even when the problems lie elsewhere. In this case, the problems associated with Apple, iPod, iTMS combo aren't really there, and the problems they are seeing aren't the cause of Apple, but rather the REAL monopoly the *IAA, which derives its power from government law and fiat law (IP law, no such thing, but people think there is).
The fact is, this situation isn't a problem in freer (US is quasi-socialist now) economies. After all, we realize that there isn't the problem people think it is, because people do have a choice of competing products and services. In addition, anyone can create a better mouse trap anytime they want.
If you don't like Apple's DRM, don't buy iPods AND download Music from iTMS. You can have your iPod or use another MP3 player, and rip music from CDs, or download MP3s from any one of a number of sources (legal and illegal). Nobody is forcing you to use iPods, iTMS or anything else Apple, and last time I checked, there were dozens of alternatives out there.
So, I stand by my original statement. It is because someone in Norway's government thinks Apples Success is bad, which is typical of Socialism in general, as success is punished.
Because Norway is SOCIALIST country, and thinks "success" is a bad word. Those others aren't "successful" and therefore are not a concern. Only people who succeed in life are punished. Everyone else is a victim of the successful.
"So many people own ipods and only one store is able to sell music to them."
Actually, this is blatantly false. Any store can sell an MP3 or even ACC without DRM and it plays just fine on an iPod. Seriously, it does.
Apple is not restricting other Music stores from selling music to iPod owners, somebody else is. Any guesses????
Additionally, Apple is not restricting iTunes Music Store from selling DRMless music, somebody else is. Any Guesses?????
If I could buy any music I wanted, from any store I wanted, and play it on any player I wanted, then where is the problem?
The problem isn't Apple, ITMS, or the iPod (or any other company/combo there is). The problem is competing DRM and Format (MP3, ACC, WMA etc). We can even see this problem within the "Microsoft Only Products" with "Play For Sure" and Zune. Is Microsoft gonna sue itself because it locked itself out of its own market for its own player?????
The only way to fix this is to revert back to least restrictive and popular format MP3, which iTMS and iPod both CAN (operative word) handle, as can 99% of the players and stores out there.
I only wish people would realize that the problem isn't Apple, iTMS and iPods, and no amount of legislation can fix it.
But you see, my point is that in fact "idiots" do have a right to their viewpoint, and often see things in a way that "smarter" people cannot. I only wish that idiots had less political power only because there seems to be more of them.;)
Your opinion. I happen to the "misrepresentation" you see, because I can see past the actual language and into the left-wing courts (9th Circuit) and see that they can take JUST ABOUT ANY LAW, and twist it beyond its intents.
So the law, as it is intended, is rarely kept intact. Further, I can see people trying to close "loopholes" effectively creating a subclass of people not able to actually speak freely because they happen to have money. As much as some don't like people with money, there are others who don't like the NAACP, NOW, etc who have the "right kind of money".
I have a suggestion, how about we ban ALL organizations from speaking on politics, only allowing PEOPLE (live human beings) who aren't affiliated with anyone to speak freely?
You can, and have the right to say anything you want. However you are responsible for the results of that speech as well. This is where many fail to realize that speech has consequences, and worse, don't want to take responsibility for those consequences.
If I am offended by something you say, can I sue? How about if I'm offended by a racial epithet uttered in my direction. How about if someone calls my wife fat and ugly? Can I sue then?
Now, as for your "fire" example, it is a strawman attack. Yelling fire in a theater is NOT political speech, which is exactly what the anti blogging law is. Would you support a ban on Porn because some people view it as harmful (like yelling fire)? Would you support the banning of the "N" word because it "offends"?
What offends me, isn't the same as what offends you, so who gets to ban what speech? What is worse about this law, is that it isn't what is being said but WHO is saying it. The result is even more chilling when you realize that only approved groups can say what they want, and unapproved groups cannot say anything.
"So people magically become smarter when dealing with state politics, and they're morons when it comes to federal politics?"
No, people have no real representation at the federal level, and more and closer representation at the state and local levels.
That, and our political structure has been screwed up by those who think themselves smarter than everyone else. While I know I am more intelligent than most people I don't go running around telling people that they are "Morons" because they happen to be less intelligent than I am. In fact, the less intelligent often see the simplicity that over analysis often prevents us "smarter" people from seeing.
Or as a professor I once knew said, an intelligent / educated person could tell you all about the genus and species and properties of a Rosaceae Rosoideae Rosa, and how it is grown and cultivated and all the useful by-products, but unless one is able to see the beauty and fragrance, its real purpose is lost. Seeing a child go up to the Rose, and looking at awe of the beauty and smelling the fragrance is something to behold. Intelligence often forgets the purpose of things, and a rose is to look at and smell.
That is a lesson I will never forget, and one that most in the Ivory Towers never learn.
In this case, being LIBERTARIAN, the less government interference, the better. This law will do NOTHING to protect anything but political allies of one-side or another, and really doesn't care about "the people".
After all, it is impossible for someone to be against the bill if they knew what it was really about, right?????
I know what the bill was about, am I am a shill / mouthpiece for nobody but myself, and YET, I know better than to regulate speech on ANY grounds, because it IS a slippery slope, or at least that is what the left has always claimed when censorship was from the right.
As a LIBERTARIAN, I find the whole Censorship by the left wing wackos and the right wing nut jobs completely distasteful. Lets just label everything "hate speech" and "lies" and create laws to protect the sensibilities of the over sensitive people
The left wants to limit free speech (Fairness Doctrine, Bloggers as Lobbyists, Political Correctness.. etc) as much if not more so than right (book burning, Porno etc) does.
I wonder how the left would feel if the right wanted to make it so that all porn producers and actors had to register to produce porn and anyone making or working in porn without a licence was subject to the same types of punishments.
They can take my speech away just after they take my guns aways. Oh wait... never mind....
How about a cost/benefit analysis of such a system before we knee jerk expensive solution to a low risk problem.
The problem here is that people equate one 450 person aircraft with more value that of 40,000 fatalities due to automobile accidents.
Air travel is one of the safest forms of travel, bar none. We don't need to spend BILLIONS of dollars making it safer, mainly because it isn't going to make it much safer.
It all sounds good, but really, it is a waste.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
"Secondly, in the last election data, why is there a wide disparity between exit polling data and the official vote count primarily in areas that used touch-screen voting with no paper trail, but yet be dead-on in areas with paper ballots?"
Could it be that the machines in question were operated by people not knowing how to operate them? These same machines put in place by partisan hacks running the local polling stations.
How come all the problem seem to be in Democratic Run Counties and Precincts? Remember "Vote Early, Vote Often"?? The democrats are not nearly as pristine as they like, nor does "one ballot, one person, one vote" mantra really mean much with them, as they have also made attempts to limit soldiers voting from overseas.
Besides, I blame stupid Democrats and stupid Democratic Voters. Perhaps we need to put Democrat operatives in the polling stations to help the poor people who can't read or write or speak English and who are functionally illiterate vote, because we all know that they only vote for democrats, and if they vote republican it has to be a mistake.
You see, the rich Republicans who can read and write and know the issues are being totally unfair by having real ballots and leaving the poor Democrats with hanging chads and malfunctioning voting machines.
It is evil conspiracy of the Republicans to not only steal the elections but make a profit doing so, selling the Diebold boxes to only Democratic Precincts. This conspiracy only deepens when you dig deeper.
BTW, I voted Libertarian for the last 20 years. I don't have a dog in this fight. I "waste" my vote every election by not participating in the charade called "free and fair elections" where only candidates from two parties win (with rare exceptions).
I do have a question for those thinking there is monkeying going on in the polling stations: How many of you people got to vote for a candidate in a meaningful primary???? By the time the Primary's come to my state, the party's have already decided who they are putting forward. I think this is MORE evil than any perceived voter fraud. There is no choice if you vote for (D) or (R). They both offer the same charade each cycle; you get a vote, it just doesn't count.
I am a BIG LIBERTARIAN, which is economically right, socially left on government roles. On the foreign policy level, I think we should be more or less isolationist to the degree that one can be.
In otherwords, leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Mess with me, and I'll mess you up.
I don't know why everyone has to be in everyone else's business like a busy body homemaker peering over the neighbors fence. I am not a socialist by any stretch because I just see that as economic terrorism and extortion.
That being said, there are a few things that government ought to control, general defense, and promoting general welfare. To the degree that one's actions affect others negatively, then that is the ratio of governmental oversight should be.
Many things people with good intentions do, ends up being short sighted in the long run, due to unintended consequences.
"It is the control of media by right-wing corporations (a large publicly traded profit-seeking corporation is, by definition, a right-wing entity, favoring capital over labor) that shuts off alternative viewpoints, and makes people wonder if a "fairness doctrine" might be the answer."
You mean like NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, NPR, Various Publishing Houses....
The way I figure it, 1/2 is left wing, 1/2 is right wing, and 0 represent Libertarian position.
"Yes, I'm saying that conservative social positions correlate with provincialism and ignorance."
That is your opinion, and is based on the kind of elitism I detest. The same kind of elitism that thinks that they know better than everyone else, and makes it into law. Don't get me wrong the right wingers do the same thing (make bad law).
How about this, I leave you alone, you leave me alone, I won't take your money for things you don't like, and you won't take my money for things I don't like. Deal?
"I mean both their book and "our" book (as in, Christians, who founded this nation and whose narrow-minded worldview still haunts us today) tell us to go out and kill the unbelievers."
Uh huh. Having read Torah every year for many many years, I can assure you that there is no "general commandment" to kill all unbelievers, as there is in the Koran.
Moderate muslims are offended by what the Quran says because they dont know anything about their own religion. Most have only seen a Quran in arabic and a lot of them dont even pray 5 times a day-they're barely muslim. Why defend a religion when you dont even know what its about? Here are some more verses from the "peaceful religion" that respects human rights and where women have a high status:
Death for apostasy: Sura 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,"
Sura 5:33: "Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom."
Sura 5:51: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
"The issue isn't them leaving us alone, it's us leaving them alone."
You don't know your history. Everyone messes with everyone. In this case, the Muslim Pirates were attacking US based shipping from Muslim Freindly countries. We attacked those countries, because of the attacks on our ships. (over simplified version).
They mess with us, we mess with them, they escalate, we escalate. Even if we withdraw completely from the world, it wouldn't end.
"And the occasional moderate liberal on Fox News "
Ever notice how even the "moderate liberals" who are on everynight aren't "liberal enough"?? That is the implication here isn't it. Ever notice there is no such thing as "moderate conservative" in the media???
As for me, I'm so far to the right, I'm actually coming up on the left. Or is that I am so far left, I'm coming up on the right?
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."
You mean like falsifying federal documents (Dan Rather/CBS)?? You mean like making up stories about homeless people and reporting them as fact??? You mean like blowing up a truck to show how "unsafe" it was?
Or how about paddling a canoe on a street to report on a flood, only to be shown that it was only 4" deep.
The fact is, EVERYONE does it, so news isn't trust worthy, especially if you get it from the same source all the time. Fox is no better, no worse than everyone else. That is my point.
Uh huh. If everyone else is to the left, everthing else seems "right" even if it is actually Center.
I don't think Fox is "right", except when compared to the rest of the media. A right wing media would be National Review (mag), which makes fox look like a left wing outlet.
"As I don't watch Fox News."
Of that, I am sure. How can you say that Fox News is "right" of center, when you don't watch it? Bill O'Really (sic), has people on from BOTH sides, and often hits BOTH sides equally. Which is something I have yet to see on NBC, CBS, ABC.... Same with Hanity and Colmes, both sides are repretented, usually by the same idiots that parrot party lines.
I also listen to all sorts of outlets(Fox, NPR, Slashot, Drudge, Moveon etc), because even if I don't like someone, every once in a while they say something useful and interesting that I had not considered before. And it is good to know what the parrot line of the day is.
Slashdot Mirror
If the right thing to do was illegal, would you hesitate to do it?
There is a short list of people who dared to do what was right, in spite of the fact it was illegal, we tend to call them "heros". There is a very long list of anonymous cowards who didn't, and nobody remembers their names for a reason.
I wonder if Microsoft will find that one in five Linux installs on Walmart computers are not genuine?
"Sedition is a crime, and that certainly falls under the category of political speech."
What the founders did when the signed the Declaration was Sedition and Treason. Sedition against tyrants is a responsibility .
5) Can you play WMA audio bought elsewhere on an iPod? NO (and yes, you can play music bought on iTMS on other players. Is it easy? No, but that wasn't your question was it?
6) If you ____ breaks can you play your legally purchased WMA on an iPod? NO, is this restrictive? YES. And yes, you can play your legally purchased music on another iPod, or any other device. Can you do it easily? No, but that wasn't your question.
7) Does iPod play MP3s? Yes Do other MP3 players ? "De facto monopoly" means you are against "success", which basically proves my point. It doesn't have a monopoly of any sort, because I can go to Walmart, Circuit City, Best Buy (all within blocks of me), and buy any one of a number of MP3 players. My freaking PHONE is an MP3 player. I don't use it as an MP3 player because it sucks.
8) Does iTunes hold a gun to peoples head so that they can Download songs? NO. Does iPods play music not downloaded from iTunes? YES. Again, your question implies that success is bad, which proves my point delightfully. Thank you!
9) No, you don't need iTunes to sync your iPod. It may not be easy, but it is possible.
10) No. You can burn them to CDs and play them using any portable CD Player.
I asked RELEVANT questions, not robot questions. The questions you asked PRESUPPOSE the answer you think you want, when in fact is all anti iPod FUD. iPods and many other devices play MP3s, and can rip CDs to that and other formats. Your questions are all based on ACC files, which I equate to WMA files. However, unlike WMA files ACC files play on all major platforms. Your questions all imply DRMed ACC files should act exactly like unDRMed MP3 and unDRMed WMA files, forgeting that the iPod does indeed play the UNIVERSAL MP3 files just fine.
The problem isn't with Apple, iPod or even ACC, it is the restrictions placed upon Apple to sell music in the first place, namely DRM. This is the same DRM required by the same music industry to sell music by any other music store selling the same music, which won't play on iPods any more than Apple's DRMed ACC won't play on any other device.
I think you have a problem because you are blaming Apple for the situation caused by someone else, namely the *IAA. Instead of attacking Apple, iTMS and iPod because they figured a way to be useful and therefore successful in spite of the restrictions the Music industry placed upon Apple, why not attack the industry responsible for DRM in the first place?
I don't deserve flamebait, because I can see where the problem is, and it isn't with Apple. Apple just figure out an elegant solution to the problem others created, just as it usually does.
The issues you pointed out with your stupid questions are the same reason why Socialism is stupid. It falsely blames success and then tries to punish it, just as a few of your questions implied. You sir, deserve the Flame Bait, but like most you are a Coward.
For those who modded this flame bait. Please answer the following ....
1)Can you put MP3s on an iPod? Is that restrictive?
2)Can you put ACC (non-DRM) on an iPod? Is that restrictive?
3)Can Other Music Stores offer music in MP3 or non-DRMed ACC music?
4)iPods do not need iTMS music to function, do they?
So, the problem isn't with iPods or the music you put on them, it is based SOLELY upon iTMS and/or DRM. Who required DRM for iTMS? Apple?
The fact is, the ONLY reason why Apple, iPod, iTMS combo is under assail is because of success. Nobody is complaining about "plays (sort of) for sure" and the Zune, or Rio Players not playing ACC, or whatever player only playing WMA or whatever.
Again, nobody would care if it weren't successful. So, the only reason they are going after Apple, is because (yes, BECAUSE) it is successful, not because of some other altruistic idea.
This is part and parcel to SOCIALISM, where success needs "regulation" in the form of government intervention, even when the problems lie elsewhere. In this case, the problems associated with Apple, iPod, iTMS combo aren't really there, and the problems they are seeing aren't the cause of Apple, but rather the REAL monopoly the *IAA, which derives its power from government law and fiat law (IP law, no such thing, but people think there is).
The fact is, this situation isn't a problem in freer (US is quasi-socialist now) economies. After all, we realize that there isn't the problem people think it is, because people do have a choice of competing products and services. In addition, anyone can create a better mouse trap anytime they want.
If you don't like Apple's DRM, don't buy iPods AND download Music from iTMS. You can have your iPod or use another MP3 player, and rip music from CDs, or download MP3s from any one of a number of sources (legal and illegal). Nobody is forcing you to use iPods, iTMS or anything else Apple, and last time I checked, there were dozens of alternatives out there.
So, I stand by my original statement. It is because someone in Norway's government thinks Apples Success is bad, which is typical of Socialism in general, as success is punished.
"Why don't they bother .... "
Because Norway is SOCIALIST country, and thinks "success" is a bad word. Those others aren't "successful" and therefore are not a concern. Only people who succeed in life are punished. Everyone else is a victim of the successful.
"So many people own ipods and only one store is able to sell music to them."
Actually, this is blatantly false. Any store can sell an MP3 or even ACC without DRM and it plays just fine on an iPod. Seriously, it does.
Apple is not restricting other Music stores from selling music to iPod owners, somebody else is. Any guesses????
Additionally, Apple is not restricting iTunes Music Store from selling DRMless music, somebody else is. Any Guesses?????
If I could buy any music I wanted, from any store I wanted, and play it on any player I wanted, then where is the problem?
The problem isn't Apple, ITMS, or the iPod (or any other company/combo there is). The problem is competing DRM and Format (MP3, ACC, WMA etc). We can even see this problem within the "Microsoft Only Products" with "Play For Sure" and Zune. Is Microsoft gonna sue itself because it locked itself out of its own market for its own player?????
The only way to fix this is to revert back to least restrictive and popular format MP3, which iTMS and iPod both CAN (operative word) handle, as can 99% of the players and stores out there.
I only wish people would realize that the problem isn't Apple, iTMS and iPods, and no amount of legislation can fix it.
But you see, my point is that in fact "idiots" do have a right to their viewpoint, and often see things in a way that "smarter" people cannot. I only wish that idiots had less political power only because there seems to be more of them. ;)
"misrepresentation of facts due to astroturfing."
Your opinion. I happen to the "misrepresentation" you see, because I can see past the actual language and into the left-wing courts (9th Circuit) and see that they can take JUST ABOUT ANY LAW, and twist it beyond its intents.
So the law, as it is intended, is rarely kept intact. Further, I can see people trying to close "loopholes" effectively creating a subclass of people not able to actually speak freely because they happen to have money. As much as some don't like people with money, there are others who don't like the NAACP, NOW, etc who have the "right kind of money".
I have a suggestion, how about we ban ALL organizations from speaking on politics, only allowing PEOPLE (live human beings) who aren't affiliated with anyone to speak freely?
You can, and have the right to say anything you want. However you are responsible for the results of that speech as well. This is where many fail to realize that speech has consequences, and worse, don't want to take responsibility for those consequences.
If I am offended by something you say, can I sue? How about if I'm offended by a racial epithet uttered in my direction. How about if someone calls my wife fat and ugly? Can I sue then?
Now, as for your "fire" example, it is a strawman attack. Yelling fire in a theater is NOT political speech, which is exactly what the anti blogging law is. Would you support a ban on Porn because some people view it as harmful (like yelling fire)? Would you support the banning of the "N" word because it "offends"?
What offends me, isn't the same as what offends you, so who gets to ban what speech? What is worse about this law, is that it isn't what is being said but WHO is saying it. The result is even more chilling when you realize that only approved groups can say what they want, and unapproved groups cannot say anything.
You don't see a problem with this???
"So people magically become smarter when dealing with state politics, and they're morons when it comes to federal politics?"
No, people have no real representation at the federal level, and more and closer representation at the state and local levels.
That, and our political structure has been screwed up by those who think themselves smarter than everyone else. While I know I am more intelligent than most people I don't go running around telling people that they are "Morons" because they happen to be less intelligent than I am. In fact, the less intelligent often see the simplicity that over analysis often prevents us "smarter" people from seeing.
Or as a professor I once knew said, an intelligent / educated person could tell you all about the genus and species and properties of a Rosaceae Rosoideae Rosa, and how it is grown and cultivated and all the useful by-products, but unless one is able to see the beauty and fragrance, its real purpose is lost. Seeing a child go up to the Rose, and looking at awe of the beauty and smelling the fragrance is something to behold. Intelligence often forgets the purpose of things, and a rose is to look at and smell.
That is a lesson I will never forget, and one that most in the Ivory Towers never learn.
In this case, being LIBERTARIAN, the less government interference, the better. This law will do NOTHING to protect anything but political allies of one-side or another, and really doesn't care about "the people".
After all, it is impossible for someone to be against the bill if they knew what it was really about, right?????
I know what the bill was about, am I am a shill / mouthpiece for nobody but myself, and YET, I know better than to regulate speech on ANY grounds, because it IS a slippery slope, or at least that is what the left has always claimed when censorship was from the right.
Or is this the Hypocrisy Zone?
As a LIBERTARIAN, I find the whole Censorship by the left wing wackos and the right wing nut jobs completely distasteful. Lets just label everything "hate speech" and "lies" and create laws to protect the sensibilities of the over sensitive people
.. etc) as much if not more so than right (book burning, Porno etc) does.
... never mind....
The left wants to limit free speech (Fairness Doctrine, Bloggers as Lobbyists, Political Correctness
I wonder how the left would feel if the right wanted to make it so that all porn producers and actors had to register to produce porn and anyone making or working in porn without a licence was subject to the same types of punishments.
They can take my speech away just after they take my guns aways. Oh wait
I wonder if this is a violation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act like Apple says here ..
/ 2127204
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/16
How about a cost/benefit analysis of such a system before we knee jerk expensive solution to a low risk problem.
The problem here is that people equate one 450 person aircraft with more value that of 40,000 fatalities due to automobile accidents.
Air travel is one of the safest forms of travel, bar none. We don't need to spend BILLIONS of dollars making it safer, mainly because it isn't going to make it much safer.
It all sounds good, but really, it is a waste.
"Secondly, in the last election data, why is there a wide disparity between exit polling data and the official vote count primarily in areas that used touch-screen voting with no paper trail, but yet be dead-on in areas with paper ballots?"
Could it be that the machines in question were operated by people not knowing how to operate them? These same machines put in place by partisan hacks running the local polling stations.
How come all the problem seem to be in Democratic Run Counties and Precincts? Remember "Vote Early, Vote Often"?? The democrats are not nearly as pristine as they like, nor does "one ballot, one person, one vote" mantra really mean much with them, as they have also made attempts to limit soldiers voting from overseas.
Besides, I blame stupid Democrats and stupid Democratic Voters. Perhaps we need to put Democrat operatives in the polling stations to help the poor people who can't read or write or speak English and who are functionally illiterate vote, because we all know that they only vote for democrats, and if they vote republican it has to be a mistake.
You see, the rich Republicans who can read and write and know the issues are being totally unfair by having real ballots and leaving the poor Democrats with hanging chads and malfunctioning voting machines.
It is evil conspiracy of the Republicans to not only steal the elections but make a profit doing so, selling the Diebold boxes to only Democratic Precincts. This conspiracy only deepens when you dig deeper.
BTW, I voted Libertarian for the last 20 years. I don't have a dog in this fight. I "waste" my vote every election by not participating in the charade called "free and fair elections" where only candidates from two parties win (with rare exceptions).
I do have a question for those thinking there is monkeying going on in the polling stations: How many of you people got to vote for a candidate in a meaningful primary???? By the time the Primary's come to my state, the party's have already decided who they are putting forward. I think this is MORE evil than any perceived voter fraud. There is no choice if you vote for (D) or (R). They both offer the same charade each cycle; you get a vote, it just doesn't count.
So, if you make a move on your sister, isn't that incest? Ewwww
I am a BIG LIBERTARIAN, which is economically right, socially left on government roles. On the foreign policy level, I think we should be more or less isolationist to the degree that one can be.
In otherwords, leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Mess with me, and I'll mess you up.
I don't know why everyone has to be in everyone else's business like a busy body homemaker peering over the neighbors fence. I am not a socialist by any stretch because I just see that as economic terrorism and extortion.
That being said, there are a few things that government ought to control, general defense, and promoting general welfare. To the degree that one's actions affect others negatively, then that is the ratio of governmental oversight should be.
Many things people with good intentions do, ends up being short sighted in the long run, due to unintended consequences.
"It is the control of media by right-wing corporations (a large publicly traded profit-seeking corporation is, by definition, a right-wing entity, favoring capital over labor) that shuts off alternative viewpoints, and makes people wonder if a "fairness doctrine" might be the answer."
....
You mean like NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, NPR, Various Publishing Houses
The way I figure it, 1/2 is left wing, 1/2 is right wing, and 0 represent Libertarian position.
"Yes, I'm saying that conservative social positions correlate with provincialism and ignorance."
That is your opinion, and is based on the kind of elitism I detest. The same kind of elitism that thinks that they know better than everyone else, and makes it into law. Don't get me wrong the right wingers do the same thing (make bad law).
How about this, I leave you alone, you leave me alone, I won't take your money for things you don't like, and you won't take my money for things I don't like. Deal?
Likewise, you will see that I have "friended" all the people who are on my freaks list. Really messes with the rating system.
LOL
"I mean both their book and "our" book (as in, Christians, who founded this nation and whose narrow-minded worldview still haunts us today) tell us to go out and kill the unbelievers."
Uh huh. Having read Torah every year for many many years, I can assure you that there is no "general commandment" to kill all unbelievers, as there is in the Koran.
Moderate muslims are offended by what the Quran says because they dont know anything about their own religion. Most have only seen a Quran in arabic and a lot of them dont even pray 5 times a day-they're barely muslim. Why defend a religion when you dont even know what its about? Here are some more verses from the "peaceful religion" that respects human rights and where women have a high status:
Death for apostasy:
Sura 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,"
Sura 5:33: "Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom."
Sura 5:51: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
"The issue isn't them leaving us alone, it's us leaving them alone."
You don't know your history. Everyone messes with everyone. In this case, the Muslim Pirates were attacking US based shipping from Muslim Freindly countries. We attacked those countries, because of the attacks on our ships. (over simplified version).
They mess with us, we mess with them, they escalate, we escalate. Even if we withdraw completely from the world, it wouldn't end.
"And the occasional moderate liberal on Fox News "
Ever notice how even the "moderate liberals" who are on everynight aren't "liberal enough"?? That is the implication here isn't it. Ever notice there is no such thing as "moderate conservative" in the media???
As for me, I'm so far to the right, I'm actually coming up on the left. Or is that I am so far left, I'm coming up on the right?
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."
You mean like falsifying federal documents (Dan Rather/CBS)?? You mean like making up stories about homeless people and reporting them as fact??? You mean like blowing up a truck to show how "unsafe" it was?
Or how about paddling a canoe on a street to report on a flood, only to be shown that it was only 4" deep.
The fact is, EVERYONE does it, so news isn't trust worthy, especially if you get it from the same source all the time. Fox is no better, no worse than everyone else. That is my point.
"Namely, Fox News clearly leans to the right."
.... Same with Hanity and Colmes, both sides are repretented, usually by the same idiots that parrot party lines.
Uh huh. If everyone else is to the left, everthing else seems "right" even if it is actually Center.
I don't think Fox is "right", except when compared to the rest of the media. A right wing media would be National Review (mag), which makes fox look like a left wing outlet.
"As I don't watch Fox News."
Of that, I am sure. How can you say that Fox News is "right" of center, when you don't watch it? Bill O'Really (sic), has people on from BOTH sides, and often hits BOTH sides equally. Which is something I have yet to see on NBC, CBS, ABC
I also listen to all sorts of outlets(Fox, NPR, Slashot, Drudge, Moveon etc), because even if I don't like someone, every once in a while they say something useful and interesting that I had not considered before. And it is good to know what the parrot line of the day is.