but a blanket assertion like "it is too expensive"
I made no such assertions — my point was, adding more money did not help improve results.
so when you try to wave a statistic like "merely 30% of 8th-graders are deemed proficient in reading" when that is actually the same rate it was back when education was "much less expensive" (by your standards) you don't really have a leg to stand on.
My leg is in that we got — by your own admission — the same (at best) results despite paying more for it. Thus, any increases in expenditures were money wasted and the original problem — whatever it was — had little-to-nothing to do with lack of funding.
His profile doesn't seem to have Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon listed as major contributors, so I'd guess this man is honestly trying to do something for his constituents.
The profile lists American Cable Association — just to dampen your enthusiasm. Not that I necessarily disagree with the Association's stated goals, but you are displaying utmost naivete, when stating, a career politician is "honestly trying to do something for his constituents." He and his likes are walking illustrations for the dire need for term-limits.
It's also worth noting that he is doing this in spite of Verizon being a major source of funding.
Verizon — which does not produce any content itself — is happy to sell you ever fatter Internet-access. The bill would hurt Verizon's competitors (liek TimeWarner) far more, than Verizon itself.
he is retiring at the end of the current Congress
Retiring does not mean dying — man's children and nieces will still need good jobs, for just one example... And he himself may appreciate a fee for a public speech, may he not? Who better to pay that fee, than the businesses he helped?
he came out in favor of gay marriage this year
WTF does that contradiction of terms have to do with Internet Service Provision? Off-topic much?
They belong to internet service providers who don't compete with anyone
Where I live, FiOS certainly does compete with Comcast — and a number of DSL-providers. The only legitimate role I see for the government is to further this competition.
and who openly argue that they shouldn't allow other companies' services
Whatever PR-game the ISPs are playing, it is theirs to play. My question stands...
Just who owns the networks, that Senator Rockefeller and his esteemed colleagues are trying to regulate? Do they belong to The People[TM], or to the Internet Service Providers competing with each other?
Since 1962 the per-pupil costs of public schools has quadrupled (inlation-adjusted — the nominal increase is 25-times!), while the results remain just as — if not even more — disappointing. Indeed, merely 30% of 8th-graders are deemed proficient in reading. Will a "makerbot" help solve this fundamental problem? Somehow I doubt it...
So when a friend lends me a DVD and I copy it, who did I stole from? From my friend, the DVD vendor, the producer, the artists, the factory where the DVD's was produced? From my friend, the DVD vendor, the producer, the artists, the factory where the DVD's was produced?
You stole it from whoever would've profited, had you honestly purchased your own copy. Whether they are "whining" themselves, or somebody is hired (by them) to "whine" on their behalf is irrelevant. But leave their whining on their own conscience. Your own use of something produced by others for profit — not only without paying them money, but, worse, followed by expressions of contempt of their desire to be paid — is on yours. It is theft, any way you slice it...
It's a copyright violation, sure, but theft of actual property?
If the 10 Commandments were a "living and breathing document", like many people (yourself included, I strongly suspect) wish the US Constitution to be, "Though Shalt Not Violate Copyright" would've been found in it by now...
Granted, there is a distinction — between theft of tangible property and copyright violation. But from the perspective of ethics and morality, there is no difference — both are about equally reprehensible. Just as I said earlier...
In what way is *one thousandth* of the song not fair use?
Say, this is an interesting method of valuing things — by size, eh?.. The mass of a key is even smaller fraction of the mass of the house it opens — stirring any thoughts?
Your brain, likewise, is a small share of the total mass of your body... Heck, a single hair from your pretty head is even less — but you'll object strongly, I'm sure, to any efforts by police to use it for DNA-analysis.
But enough analogies — the simple truth is, the texts, however small their size, are not yours, and "fair use", if any, is at the owner's discretion.
Back to the fraction and songs, if we still must, the lyrics are copyrighted by themselves — not as part of a song, but by themselves, 100%.
Maybe, once you create something of your own, you'll begin to respect the value of other people's creations.
Sadly, the time could be rather long. Even Zimbabwe continues to, sort of, exist still — years after its demagogue all but abolished Capitalism and introduced price-controls. Venezuela — barring a coup — will exist even longer thanks to its oil.
But you should know it won't last, being a USSR survivor... since you can't go to the USSR anymore...
True that. But 70 years is an awfully long time...
The government will require you to bring hard-currency into government-run stores, exchange it there for Bolivars (at the official rate) and then spend the Bolivars on the ("low"-priced) electronics.
but the black market will be in bolivars
The black market will take anything you wish to spend — but Bolivar-denominated prices will have nothing to do with the official rate.
Get it now, because no one in their right might is going to import electronics into Venezuela anytime soon.
Oh, they will... Take it from a USSR survivor, there will be two groups of importers: official and otherwise.
The officially-imported electronics will be available in the government-run stores — for Sean Penn and other supporters of Socialism to see. No, ordinary people would not be able to buy anything there — you'd either need to have a special pass to enter the store, or have hard-currency (or some sort of government-issued coupons). Though the prices will be denominated in Bolivars, you'll have to exchange your foreign currency right there — at the official rate...
The unofficially imported stuff will be sold on the black market, which the government will fight tooth and nail — thus providing law-enforcement with easy side-income (that is likely to exceed their official salary). The corruption will, well, corrupt the entire population — and the law-enforcement in particular — for generations to come. The actual businessmen bothering with such imports will be denounced as "speculators" — by contrasting their prices with those of the government stores (described above).
A grey area will be represented by people, who purchase their own stuff abroad. They would, probably, be allowed such items — perhaps, after paying some customs fee — and even permitted to sell them (used). As long, as of course, they don't attempt to profit from such sales...
I also don't think Ayn Rand was talking about Venezuela, or that most of her detractors would support a government take over of Best Buy
The World Social Forum — yes, it is just what it sounds like, plenty of Ayn Rand detractors, to put it mildly — once declared Hugo Chavez a "guest of honor". Yeah, they would support just such a government. Of course, when the take-overs (a.k.a. confiscations) begin in earnest, the weaker among them will try to forget it and lament, how this particular attempt at Communism "was not done right either" and how the next one — the one they'll undertake — will finally show the whole glory of the new order.
It is not any more "undesirable" than the ability of an upset boy to go home taking his ball with him. It is his ball — and there is nothing to be done here, short of abolishing property rights.
Look up how Jim Crow laws worked in the US. Even literacy tests were used for racial discrimination, and it's easy for that kind of thing to become self-perpetuating. If the poor people only have access to public schooling and it isn't very good, then you can write the tests so that only people who had a better education can pass it and then defund public schools more...
I stipulate, that despite everybody having a vote currently, the number of people able to solve a linear (much less square) equation remains far from 100% — despite the four-fold increase in per-pupil expenditures in the public schools since 1962 (inflation-adjusted!). Whatever we have today is not working (not for the schools, anyway), which would seem to invalidate your particular argument against Heinlein's proposed disenfranchising.
I'd be in favour of a simpler test: Do you know what the candidate stands for?
This is simple in your opinions?! Wow... And who — which omniscient, objective, and benevolent committee — will distinguish, for just one example, one man's onset of prosperity by abolition of the minimum wage from another man's starving off the working poor?
The candidate would be free to hand out solutions to the test on their campaign leaflets, as long as the voters actually read them and learn more than 'he wants to lower taxes / is {for, against} abortion'.
It certainly seems to me, solving an equation — even a cubic one — is simpler than the burden you are proposing to impose on the voters. And it is much harder to corrupt — because, unlike political speech, Math blind to ideology, as well as a man's color, pedigree, accent, and body shape.
So the South wouldn't try to exclude the former slaves from voting by declaring they weren't citizens.
It is perfectly possible to achieve that without allowing everyone to vote. The criteria could be — from Heinlein's other writings — an ability to solve a linear (or square) equation, for example. Regardless of the rule, as long as the race is not explicitly mentioned, various classes of people could be disenfranchised — quite possibly to the betterment of the society.
Then there's the elitist shitbaggery of...
Come, come, there is no need for such robust language — the man is dead for over 20 years anyway. I was just explaining the point he tried to make in the book (not inviting anybody to necessarily like it) and pointing out, that almost none of it made its way into the movie.
Now, as far elitism, of the three protagonists who sign up into service, one is rich, but, being not that smart, ends up in the infantry, the other is poor, but, being smart, ends up in intelligence, and the third — the girl (her family's wealth not mentioned) — becomes a pilot. All of them are equally entitled to full citizenship upon completing their service — regardless of wealth. See, maybe you should read the book before mouthing off the author for "shitbaggery"?
Did Heinlein also sit around and wonder why there was a push to lower the voting age from 21 when 18 year olds could be drafted to go off and die in capitalist wars on the other side of the planet?
I postulate, that although a man is capable of soldiering at 18, he is rarely capable of a rational and educated vote at that age (some people never develop this ability, but virtually none have it at 18). Thus I fail to see a connection between the two ages. Indeed, we don't let people buy alcohol (or even enter bars) until 21 — yet, nobody is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to stop that travesty...
That said, you may be relieved to learn, that Heinlein considered conscription to be a form of slavery, which he denounced. Himself a former officer (Navy), he did not want any one in the service, who did not want to be there himself.
Whether the wars were "capitalist" (whatever that means) and which side of the planet their theaters are, is not at all germane to the discussion. I struggle to understand, what — other than rabid hatred for America and Capitalism — could make you mention these irrelevant bits.
Finally, I'm curious about your own opinion — now that we are decades since abolishing the draft , would you be willing to allow the States to set the voting age as they see fit — because the argument used to lower it to 18 no longer applies?
An argument can be made, for example, that If, as we are told by the current Administration, children ought to be allowed to remain on their parents' health-insurance up to the age of 26, maybe, that's the age they ought to begin voting as well?
when House Speaker John Boehner inserts a provision into an unrelated bill to require the army to buy overpriced M1 tanks that they don't even want, that just happen to be built in his district, why exactly is that in any way beneficial to society?
It makes things — metal is poured, people retain (and improve) their skills at it and the many other things required to make the tank. I agree wholeheartedly, that it is wasteful — but not as wasteful (and destructive) than the endless subsidy.
People who lack the basic necessities of life do whatever it takes to acquire those necessities...
but given that there are currently 3 unemployed people per open position
Citation needed... But, even we accept these numbers, why is it, that numerous immigrants — legal and otherwise — come to this country and manage to not only do rather well, but to support extended families back home? They are, we are told — by Democrats and certain Republicans alike — "taking jobs Americans would not do"... Of course, Americans don't need to take such jobs — various government programs provide the "safety net", that's more comfortable, than getting up in the morning.
If they can't work, and can't borrow the money because they've ruined their credit, they will steal those necessities
Oh, now the truth comes out... It is not the kind benevolence, that keeps you wanting to pay them — it is the fear of them robbing you... Makes sense.
But, no, the first option you listed — and dismissed so quickly — is perfectly practical. There is plenty of work to be done, but some of it pays less, than the government's handouts do — so, why bother?..
Christy Walton has produced over her career...
Christy Walton's late husband provided for her — her current wealth was earned by him. She is the lucky beneficiary of our civilization's notion, that the dying are allowed to decide, who gets their wealth after them — whether she "deserves" it is not for us to decide, the monies are her husband's.
What makes her worthy of adulation, and him so heinous that you're willing to condemn him to death?
I am neither adulating over Ms. Walton, nor condemning anybody to death. I am not counting other people's monies — you do...
As for your poster-vet (assuming he actually exists and is not collecting the pay he duly earned in Vietnam), you've already admitted, that your own concern for such people stems not from compassion, but from fear, he would turn to robbing you.
But even if it were compassion — you are welcome to help him out, if his case seems compelling to you. You are even welcome to attempt to convince perfect strangers (like me) to help him out. What you are not entitled to (or should not be) is forcing me (at gun-point — implicit in all tax-collection) to pay for the guy, who did not manage to save for his own retirement in over 40 years since his military service ended...
Slashdot Mirror
I made no such assertions — my point was, adding more money did not help improve results.
My leg is in that we got — by your own admission — the same (at best) results despite paying more for it. Thus, any increases in expenditures were money wasted and the original problem — whatever it was — had little-to-nothing to do with lack of funding.
Citation needed. Badly...
His profile doesn't seem to have Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon listed as major contributors, so I'd guess this man is honestly trying to do something for his constituents.
The profile lists American Cable Association — just to dampen your enthusiasm. Not that I necessarily disagree with the Association's stated goals, but you are displaying utmost naivete, when stating, a career politician is "honestly trying to do something for his constituents." He and his likes are walking illustrations for the dire need for term-limits.
Verizon — which does not produce any content itself — is happy to sell you ever fatter Internet-access. The bill would hurt Verizon's competitors (liek TimeWarner) far more, than Verizon itself.
Retiring does not mean dying — man's children and nieces will still need good jobs, for just one example... And he himself may appreciate a fee for a public speech, may he not? Who better to pay that fee, than the businesses he helped?
WTF does that contradiction of terms have to do with Internet Service Provision? Off-topic much?
If those people are simply your customers, then the best way to help them is by creating competition to your business.
Speaking about your car, house, and gun — do you honestly accept all restrictions imposed as just? I doubt it...
Really? Reading Slashdot, one gets an impression, that once you create a copy of the data, the copy is yours to do as you please...
Where I live, FiOS certainly does compete with Comcast — and a number of DSL-providers. The only legitimate role I see for the government is to further this competition.
Whatever PR-game the ISPs are playing, it is theirs to play. My question stands...
Just who owns the networks, that Senator Rockefeller and his esteemed colleagues are trying to regulate? Do they belong to The People[TM], or to the Internet Service Providers competing with each other?
That increases in funding failed — for some reason — to improve education quality.
The per-pupil costs not tripled, but quadrupled — and not all of those monies are spent on (the more expensive) labor...
Come, come — is not it customary to exclude present company in a polite argument?
Since 1962 the per-pupil costs of public schools has quadrupled (inlation-adjusted — the nominal increase is 25-times!), while the results remain just as — if not even more — disappointing. Indeed, merely 30% of 8th-graders are deemed proficient in reading . Will a "makerbot" help solve this fundamental problem? Somehow I doubt it...
You stole it from whoever would've profited, had you honestly purchased your own copy. Whether they are "whining" themselves, or somebody is hired (by them) to "whine" on their behalf is irrelevant. But leave their whining on their own conscience. Your own use of something produced by others for profit — not only without paying them money, but, worse, followed by expressions of contempt of their desire to be paid — is on yours. It is theft, any way you slice it...
If the 10 Commandments were a "living and breathing document", like many people (yourself included, I strongly suspect) wish the US Constitution to be, "Though Shalt Not Violate Copyright" would've been found in it by now...
Granted, there is a distinction — between theft of tangible property and copyright violation. But from the perspective of ethics and morality, there is no difference — both are about equally reprehensible. Just as I said earlier...
Say, this is an interesting method of valuing things — by size, eh?.. The mass of a key is even smaller fraction of the mass of the house it opens — stirring any thoughts?
Your brain, likewise, is a small share of the total mass of your body... Heck, a single hair from your pretty head is even less — but you'll object strongly, I'm sure, to any efforts by police to use it for DNA-analysis.
But enough analogies — the simple truth is, the texts, however small their size, are not yours, and "fair use", if any, is at the owner's discretion.
Back to the fraction and songs, if we still must, the lyrics are copyrighted by themselves — not as part of a song, but by themselves, 100%.
Maybe, once you create something of your own, you'll begin to respect the value of other people's creations.
The distinction you are attempting to make is without difference.
Sadly, the time could be rather long. Even Zimbabwe continues to, sort of, exist still — years after its demagogue all but abolished Capitalism and introduced price-controls. Venezuela — barring a coup — will exist even longer thanks to its oil.
True that. But 70 years is an awfully long time...
The government will require you to bring hard-currency into government-run stores, exchange it there for Bolivars (at the official rate) and then spend the Bolivars on the ("low"-priced) electronics.
The black market will take anything you wish to spend — but Bolivar-denominated prices will have nothing to do with the official rate.
Khmm, this is such a love-fest among Capitalists, I wonder, where have all our Illiberal colleagues gone?..
Perhaps, they've started to ignore all news from Venezuella as too depressing...
Oh, they will... Take it from a USSR survivor, there will be two groups of importers: official and otherwise.
The officially-imported electronics will be available in the government-run stores — for Sean Penn and other supporters of Socialism to see. No, ordinary people would not be able to buy anything there — you'd either need to have a special pass to enter the store, or have hard-currency (or some sort of government-issued coupons). Though the prices will be denominated in Bolivars, you'll have to exchange your foreign currency right there — at the official rate...
The unofficially imported stuff will be sold on the black market, which the government will fight tooth and nail — thus providing law-enforcement with easy side-income (that is likely to exceed their official salary). The corruption will, well, corrupt the entire population — and the law-enforcement in particular — for generations to come. The actual businessmen bothering with such imports will be denounced as "speculators" — by contrasting their prices with those of the government stores (described above).
A grey area will be represented by people, who purchase their own stuff abroad. They would, probably, be allowed such items — perhaps, after paying some customs fee — and even permitted to sell them (used). As long, as of course, they don't attempt to profit from such sales...
The World Social Forum — yes, it is just what it sounds like, plenty of Ayn Rand detractors, to put it mildly — once declared Hugo Chavez a "guest of honor". Yeah, they would support just such a government. Of course, when the take-overs (a.k.a. confiscations) begin in earnest, the weaker among them will try to forget it and lament, how this particular attempt at Communism "was not done right either" and how the next one — the one they'll undertake — will finally show the whole glory of the new order.
In other words, Linux is dying...
It is not any more "undesirable" than the ability of an upset boy to go home taking his ball with him. It is his ball — and there is nothing to be done here, short of abolishing property rights.
The behavior of copyright-owners is silly — in this case. Or so it seems to me. But I am not a copyright owner myself.
How do you jump from that to the idea, that the entire copyright law needs changing, is beyond me.
They own the copyright and that's that.
Hell will undergo a climate change before an Arab nation will openly admit, Israel is doing something — anything — worth studying and copying.
I stipulate, that despite everybody having a vote currently, the number of people able to solve a linear (much less square) equation remains far from 100% — despite the four-fold increase in per-pupil expenditures in the public schools since 1962 (inflation-adjusted!). Whatever we have today is not working (not for the schools, anyway), which would seem to invalidate your particular argument against Heinlein's proposed disenfranchising.
This is simple in your opinions?! Wow... And who — which omniscient, objective, and benevolent committee — will distinguish, for just one example, one man's onset of prosperity by abolition of the minimum wage from another man's starving off the working poor?
It certainly seems to me, solving an equation — even a cubic one — is simpler than the burden you are proposing to impose on the voters. And it is much harder to corrupt — because, unlike political speech, Math blind to ideology, as well as a man's color, pedigree, accent, and body shape.
It is perfectly possible to achieve that without allowing everyone to vote. The criteria could be — from Heinlein's other writings — an ability to solve a linear (or square) equation, for example. Regardless of the rule, as long as the race is not explicitly mentioned, various classes of people could be disenfranchised — quite possibly to the betterment of the society.
Come, come, there is no need for such robust language — the man is dead for over 20 years anyway. I was just explaining the point he tried to make in the book (not inviting anybody to necessarily like it) and pointing out, that almost none of it made its way into the movie.
Now, as far elitism, of the three protagonists who sign up into service, one is rich, but, being not that smart, ends up in the infantry, the other is poor, but, being smart, ends up in intelligence, and the third — the girl (her family's wealth not mentioned) — becomes a pilot. All of them are equally entitled to full citizenship upon completing their service — regardless of wealth. See, maybe you should read the book before mouthing off the author for "shitbaggery"?
I postulate, that although a man is capable of soldiering at 18, he is rarely capable of a rational and educated vote at that age (some people never develop this ability, but virtually none have it at 18). Thus I fail to see a connection between the two ages. Indeed, we don't let people buy alcohol (or even enter bars) until 21 — yet, nobody is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to stop that travesty...
That said, you may be relieved to learn, that Heinlein considered conscription to be a form of slavery, which he denounced. Himself a former officer (Navy), he did not want any one in the service, who did not want to be there himself.
Whether the wars were "capitalist" (whatever that means) and which side of the planet their theaters are, is not at all germane to the discussion. I struggle to understand, what — other than rabid hatred for America and Capitalism — could make you mention these irrelevant bits.
Finally, I'm curious about your own opinion — now that we are decades since abolishing the draft , would you be willing to allow the States to set the voting age as they see fit — because the argument used to lower it to 18 no longer applies?
An argument can be made, for example, that If, as we are told by the current Administration, children ought to be allowed to remain on their parents' health-insurance up to the age of 26, maybe, that's the age they ought to begin voting as well?
It makes things — metal is poured, people retain (and improve) their skills at it and the many other things required to make the tank. I agree wholeheartedly, that it is wasteful — but not as wasteful (and destructive) than the endless subsidy.
Citation needed... But, even we accept these numbers, why is it, that numerous immigrants — legal and otherwise — come to this country and manage to not only do rather well, but to support extended families back home? They are, we are told — by Democrats and certain Republicans alike — "taking jobs Americans would not do"... Of course, Americans don't need to take such jobs — various government programs provide the "safety net", that's more comfortable, than getting up in the morning.
Oh, now the truth comes out... It is not the kind benevolence, that keeps you wanting to pay them — it is the fear of them robbing you... Makes sense.
But, no, the first option you listed — and dismissed so quickly — is perfectly practical. There is plenty of work to be done, but some of it pays less, than the government's handouts do — so, why bother?..
Christy Walton's late husband provided for her — her current wealth was earned by him. She is the lucky beneficiary of our civilization's notion, that the dying are allowed to decide, who gets their wealth after them — whether she "deserves" it is not for us to decide, the monies are her husband's.
I am neither adulating over Ms. Walton, nor condemning anybody to death. I am not counting other people's monies — you do...
As for your poster-vet (assuming he actually exists and is not collecting the pay he duly earned in Vietnam), you've already admitted, that your own concern for such people stems not from compassion, but from fear, he would turn to robbing you.
But even if it were compassion — you are welcome to help him out, if his case seems compelling to you. You are even welcome to attempt to convince perfect strangers (like me) to help him out. What you are not entitled to (or should not be) is forcing me (at gun-point — implicit in all tax-collection) to pay for the guy, who did not manage to save for his own retirement in over 40 years since his military service ended...