While we're on the topic, I MUST supply the obligatory plug:
Please, please, PLEASE consider volunteering with the Literacy Council. You have enjoyed being able to read for (likely) some time now, and many people lack this ability. LC is a wonderful group. They will pair you with a student that meets your specifications. Young, old, male, female, disability, ESL, you name it. You can truly help people here, and it's such an easy thing to do.
My wife volunteers and is currently assisting an ESL mother-of-two learn to read english. I am in the process of learning to teach younger children. You do not need any prior experience, and LC will provide you with help and instruction to get you and your student started. Location is not an issue. Whether your in downtown San Francisco, or Fairbanks, Alaska, you can help.
Again, PLEASE consider volunteering. You could literally change someone's life.
I think it's excellent that you bring this up. No system will work when those who are supposed to be controlled by the system take it upon themselves to step outside. The only response, at that point, is to step outside the system as well. That is the message I was driving at in my previous response to your comments.
I believe we're well beyond the point of no return for our nation's current form of government. In order to fix this problem, there MUST be a revolution. And I don't mean a mild, "Hey look, this is kind of different" revolution. I mean a serious, all-out, abolish-the-current-regime revolution. Whether or not it involves beheadings is up to the current establishment and how far they decide to take this. My only hope is that we can make the revolution happen in my lifetime. The sooner it happens, the less bloody it will be. Also, that way I'll still be alive to gloat.
You bring up a very valid subset of cases against the government: cases in which the government is both the plaintiff and the defendant. No, I had not considered that, and it is valid. What I was driving at with my proposition, however, was that in order to appeal decisions against the government, the appeal should be driven by the CITIZENS of our country, not the government. I think my original statement included citizens appealing decisions made against the government. So, why should this be any different? If the FBI abuses its power (government at the federal level), a state files a lawsuit against them (government at the state level), ad the state loses, why not let the people appeal the decision, just as in a case of The People v. The Government? This way, it takes a case of The Government v. The Government and turns it into a case of (after the first failed iteration) The People v. The Government.
This is a common principle in computer science: take a problem you don't necessarily know how to solve, and reduce it to one you do. I'm claiming (if we followed my proposition) that we know how to handle The People v. The Government. You say we don't know how to handle The Government v. The Government. So, reduce The Government v. The Government to The People v. The Government.
Mind you, I fully realize the fact that there is one critical aspect missing from my entire train of thought here: a mechanism. But let's figure out the requirements before we figure out the process.
-G
P.S. This is fun! I enjoy it when someone presents a counter-argument that actually makes sense and forces me to re-think my original position. Don't be shy about replying again.;)
This is why he should be impeached. He is no longer faithfully executing the duty of his office. As you said, he commands the forces of our nation. If he attempts to use those forces to deny such an action (that is, if he attempts to force the nation to accept his rule through military force) then there is a very grave consequence that I have no doubt would occur. While it may land me on several federal watch lists, if I am not already, I'll say it anyhow: that consequence is death. Yes, I believe that if Bush attempts to take control of this nation through military force, he WILL be assassinated. Possibly by a foreign entity (recognized government or otherwise), or possibly by a citizen of this country. I don't know. But someone will step up and perform this horrible task.
So, I just used the words BUSH and ASSASSINATE in the same sentence. I have little doubt I'll be watched very closely from here on out. Fortunately, I am more or less a law-abiding citizen. I speed while driving a fair amount of the time, and have smoked marijuana twice in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's it. Oh, and there were a couple incidences of under-age drinking in my early college career. Hopefully, with such a minimal history, no black-suits will show up at my door this week.
As another person responded, you missed the key idea here. Private citizens, corporations, etc. should all be allowed to appeal decisions ad nauseam. The only modification is that the government can not appeal decisions made against it. All it really means is that if the (judicial branch of, at some level) the government says the government is wrong, the government must accept this decision. If the people the government is supposed to serve disagree and feel the court ruling was unfair, let them make a stink about it.
In absolutely no way am I suggesting we do away with appeals and make all court decisions final. Just limit (in very special circumstances) who can spearhead the appeal.
If, after understanding my original proposition--rather than the agreeably inane idea of doing away with appeals entirely, which I did not suggest--you still think such an idea is nuts, please do elaborate. When, precisely, should the government be allowed to appeal a decision (made by the government!) ?
I think the problem here is obvious: freely available online video content causes violence! What we need is anti-freely-available-online-video-content legislation. It's the only way to save our outdated ways from the children! Maybe Jack Thompson has a twin that could take up this torch?
Too bad that it will never, EVER happen. Nebulous blobs with power really hate to give up that power once they have it, and this would be a prime example of self-imposing limitations. Why, the next thing you know, they'd call off the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror," after owning up to the fact that these are just excuses used to keep our nation in a state of war (which is the only reason organizations such as the FBI, CIA, EPA, etc. are allowed to exist, not to mention the vast standing armies we maintain.)
There is a simple solution to a significant portion of this bullshit (which will absolutely not become a reality until there is an actual revolution and the current establishment is dissolved): DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, allow the GOVERNMENT to appeal a decision made in the courts. EVER, EVER, EVER. (implied underline, strikethrough, blink, and high-voltage electrical shock)
The moment "the government" attempts to appeal a court decision, it is PAINFULLY CLEAR that "the government" is serving its own interests, rather than those of the people. If the court has made an incorrect decision, let THE PEOPLE appeal the decision. Let a private citizen (or group thereof) take up the torch and fight the incorrect decision.
I have a difficult time imagining ANY situation in which "the government" should be allowed to appeal a decision made in the courts. All that really allows is to require only a very small subset of judges be corrupt. The government can simply escalate all the way to the top, past the non-corrupted officials, at which point the case falls under the control of the corrupt party, and "the government" wins.
-G
P.S. I absolutely loathe the term "the government." It is only used to make those being abused by "the government" think there is a single, cohesive entity against which one can wage battle. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The only way to fight this creature is to destroy the entire thing at once. A Wish would do it, and maybe a Fireball, but only if you roll really, really high.
P.P.S Sorry if the paragraphs above are a bit muddled or poorly organized. When I get riled up, I have difficulty organizing my thoughts.
...[I care] whether the politician is honest and will support the positions I care about. I will vote for said person... So, you're saying you're not voting anymore?
The point of satire is not the satire itself, but rather the environment in which the satire occurs. While many of the same issues and corruptions exist as did 40 years ago, we as a nation are very definitely in a different state than we were then. That is to say, the context has changed significantly enough.
Additionally, while satire may cause laughter, when done properly that laughter is uncomfortable. Satire is not meant to amuse, but rather to disturb. You're supposed to say to yourself, "Ha ha! That's so funny, because it's so true. Oh my god, it's so true."
Just like claiming that a copyright takedown notice is copyrighted content (and therefore cannot be reproduced online or in any other form) they could just claim that the packets they are sending to shut down connections are copyrighted content and decoding them is a circumvention which violates the DMCA. Also, their performance and/or protocol compliance (definitely the latter!) are "trade secrets." Also, you're just trying to make people afraid of the great and trustworthy businesses which are implicitly responsible for our nation's infrastructure, which makes you a terrorist. Enjoy your stay in Hotel Gitmo! Wake-up calls begin at 3AM.
Now, if Valve wanted to throw a lot of money into the works and have Steam installed on all the home PCs sold by say Dell and HP with an icon plastered on the desktop... Holy crap, don't say that too loud. That's a dangerously good idea.:P
I am not a hard-core gamer. I play games once in a while, I go to a friend's house some weekends and use one of his computers to play games. When I do actually buy a game, I play it pretty hard for a couple few days, then I lose interest and wander off. I have no idea what the current hot new releases are, or what have you. I just don't pay attention or care.
Here's the thing: because I'm just not that interested, I don't go to the local EB at the mall. The physical boxes there have *no* presence in my life. However, I downloaded Steam cause I was mildly curious. I have bought more games over Steam in the past year than I had purchased at retail in the previous *decade*. It is far too easy to open Steam and say, "Hmm, what's on the front-page? Oh, that looks interesting. Only 20 bucks? Okay, I'll buy it." And voila, it's mine. I don't have to go to the store, or anything. I just *buy* it. Way more casual than retail.
What I'm trying to say is that venues such as Steam are so much *better* for attracting the casual gamer. You don't need to attract them long enough to go to the store, pick out the product, stand in line, pay for the thing, etc. You only have to attract them long enough to hit the "Purchase" button. Hell, convince them to store their purchasing information on the server and it's a one-click bonanza! The only problem is that you first have to educate the user that an option such as Steam exists. That just takes time, as does any new marketing method.
Steam is a brilliant idea, and is a great way to capture the casual consumer. One may even argue that retail is better suited to the hard-core gamer, because they're the ones willing to make the trek all the way to the store just for the latest Whatsits 2008: Episode 4.5: The Whatsening: Super Gold Edition.
Steam made me buy games I absolutely would not have bought otherwise.
Don't forget Alaska. You CAN NOT drive to the lower 48 without passing through Canada, which requires a passport now (also, don't you dare bring guns across that particular border...and a lot of Alaskans own guns. I subsistence hunt, and I would not be willing to give up that source of food just so I can drive to the lower 48 instead of flying.
Otherwise, there's the Alaska Marine Highway, which means it takes the better part of a week to get down there, depending on where precisely you're coming from. Hell...it takes me about 8 hours to fly from the second-largest city in the state to Seattle. Driving that distance, even were it not for the Canada-border thing, is simply not an option in all circumstances. "Hey, boss, I'm taking a week off from work so I can spend a day in Seattle for a funeral. See ya!"
This is entirely my point...in many cases, it is NOT dependant on population density. It is dependant on whether or not they have to bother to compete. In my case, they don't. I either pay for their over-priced "service," or I'm stuck on 56k, dense population or not.
Which, again, is precisely what Verizon is attempting. Do not give these companies ANY good faith. They squandered that long ago. Given the chance, they will do as little as possible to make as much as possible. The vast majority of their revenue from your bill consists of the overhead cost of providing service, not the incremental upgrades. That is, if they charge you $40 to provide service, and $10 for each incremental upgrade, they would just as soon scrap the upgrades, charge the base cost for the base service, and just charge it to more people (and change their letterhead to read: "Made possible by a monopoly near you"). The only reason they offer the incremental upgrades is for competition.
Well, your distance from the exchange, anyhow. My point is, I'm less than 2km from one of the most densely populated regions in the area. The only reason they wouldn't have a DSLAM closer than they do is because they have a complete and utter monopoly, which means there is no reason to offer competitive speeds at competitive rates. Instead, they can offer crappy service at highly non-competitive rates. Which is exactly what Verizon is working towards. Once it's an option for an ISP to non-compete and still pull in money hand over fist, THEY WILL.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're on the topic, I MUST supply the obligatory plug:
Please, please, PLEASE consider volunteering with the Literacy Council. You have enjoyed being able to read for (likely) some time now, and many people lack this ability. LC is a wonderful group. They will pair you with a student that meets your specifications. Young, old, male, female, disability, ESL, you name it. You can truly help people here, and it's such an easy thing to do.
My wife volunteers and is currently assisting an ESL mother-of-two learn to read english. I am in the process of learning to teach younger children. You do not need any prior experience, and LC will provide you with help and instruction to get you and your student started. Location is not an issue. Whether your in downtown San Francisco, or Fairbanks, Alaska, you can help.
Again, PLEASE consider volunteering. You could literally change someone's life.
Literacy Council
http://www.literacycouncil.org/
Disclaimer: I am not a Literacy Council representative in any way, I just think you should offer your time and expertise to those who lack the latter.
-G
Addendum to my previous response:
I think it's excellent that you bring this up. No system will work when those who are supposed to be controlled by the system take it upon themselves to step outside. The only response, at that point, is to step outside the system as well. That is the message I was driving at in my previous response to your comments.
I believe we're well beyond the point of no return for our nation's current form of government. In order to fix this problem, there MUST be a revolution. And I don't mean a mild, "Hey look, this is kind of different" revolution. I mean a serious, all-out, abolish-the-current-regime revolution. Whether or not it involves beheadings is up to the current establishment and how far they decide to take this. My only hope is that we can make the revolution happen in my lifetime. The sooner it happens, the less bloody it will be. Also, that way I'll still be alive to gloat.
-G
You bring up a very valid subset of cases against the government: cases in which the government is both the plaintiff and the defendant. No, I had not considered that, and it is valid. What I was driving at with my proposition, however, was that in order to appeal decisions against the government, the appeal should be driven by the CITIZENS of our country, not the government. I think my original statement included citizens appealing decisions made against the government. So, why should this be any different? If the FBI abuses its power (government at the federal level), a state files a lawsuit against them (government at the state level), ad the state loses, why not let the people appeal the decision, just as in a case of The People v. The Government? This way, it takes a case of The Government v. The Government and turns it into a case of (after the first failed iteration) The People v. The Government.
;)
This is a common principle in computer science: take a problem you don't necessarily know how to solve, and reduce it to one you do. I'm claiming (if we followed my proposition) that we know how to handle The People v. The Government. You say we don't know how to handle The Government v. The Government. So, reduce The Government v. The Government to The People v. The Government.
Mind you, I fully realize the fact that there is one critical aspect missing from my entire train of thought here: a mechanism. But let's figure out the requirements before we figure out the process.
-G
P.S. This is fun! I enjoy it when someone presents a counter-argument that actually makes sense and forces me to re-think my original position. Don't be shy about replying again.
This is why he should be impeached. He is no longer faithfully executing the duty of his office. As you said, he commands the forces of our nation. If he attempts to use those forces to deny such an action (that is, if he attempts to force the nation to accept his rule through military force) then there is a very grave consequence that I have no doubt would occur. While it may land me on several federal watch lists, if I am not already, I'll say it anyhow: that consequence is death. Yes, I believe that if Bush attempts to take control of this nation through military force, he WILL be assassinated. Possibly by a foreign entity (recognized government or otherwise), or possibly by a citizen of this country. I don't know. But someone will step up and perform this horrible task.
So, I just used the words BUSH and ASSASSINATE in the same sentence. I have little doubt I'll be watched very closely from here on out. Fortunately, I am more or less a law-abiding citizen. I speed while driving a fair amount of the time, and have smoked marijuana twice in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's it. Oh, and there were a couple incidences of under-age drinking in my early college career. Hopefully, with such a minimal history, no black-suits will show up at my door this week.
-G
As another person responded, you missed the key idea here. Private citizens, corporations, etc. should all be allowed to appeal decisions ad nauseam. The only modification is that the government can not appeal decisions made against it. All it really means is that if the (judicial branch of, at some level) the government says the government is wrong, the government must accept this decision. If the people the government is supposed to serve disagree and feel the court ruling was unfair, let them make a stink about it.
In absolutely no way am I suggesting we do away with appeals and make all court decisions final. Just limit (in very special circumstances) who can spearhead the appeal.
If, after understanding my original proposition--rather than the agreeably inane idea of doing away with appeals entirely, which I did not suggest--you still think such an idea is nuts, please do elaborate. When, precisely, should the government be allowed to appeal a decision (made by the government!) ?
-G
I think the problem here is obvious: freely available online video content causes violence! What we need is anti-freely-available-online-video-content legislation. It's the only way to save our outdated ways from the children! Maybe Jack Thompson has a twin that could take up this torch?
-G
Too bad that it will never, EVER happen. Nebulous blobs with power really hate to give up that power once they have it, and this would be a prime example of self-imposing limitations. Why, the next thing you know, they'd call off the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror," after owning up to the fact that these are just excuses used to keep our nation in a state of war (which is the only reason organizations such as the FBI, CIA, EPA, etc. are allowed to exist, not to mention the vast standing armies we maintain.)
-G
There is a simple solution to a significant portion of this bullshit (which will absolutely not become a reality until there is an actual revolution and the current establishment is dissolved): DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, allow the GOVERNMENT to appeal a decision made in the courts. EVER, EVER, EVER. (implied underline, strikethrough, blink, and high-voltage electrical shock)
The moment "the government" attempts to appeal a court decision, it is PAINFULLY CLEAR that "the government" is serving its own interests, rather than those of the people. If the court has made an incorrect decision, let THE PEOPLE appeal the decision. Let a private citizen (or group thereof) take up the torch and fight the incorrect decision.
I have a difficult time imagining ANY situation in which "the government" should be allowed to appeal a decision made in the courts. All that really allows is to require only a very small subset of judges be corrupt. The government can simply escalate all the way to the top, past the non-corrupted officials, at which point the case falls under the control of the corrupt party, and "the government" wins.
-G
P.S. I absolutely loathe the term "the government." It is only used to make those being abused by "the government" think there is a single, cohesive entity against which one can wage battle. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The only way to fight this creature is to destroy the entire thing at once. A Wish would do it, and maybe a Fireball, but only if you roll really, really high.
P.P.S Sorry if the paragraphs above are a bit muddled or poorly organized. When I get riled up, I have difficulty organizing my thoughts.
Well done! I had a joke all ready to go, something about the license plate number on the truck that hit their servers but you, Sir, have won.
-G
Well, power, anyhow.
-G
...[I care] whether the politician is honest and will support the positions I care about. I will vote for said person... So, you're saying you're not voting anymore?-G
The point of satire is not the satire itself, but rather the environment in which the satire occurs. While many of the same issues and corruptions exist as did 40 years ago, we as a nation are very definitely in a different state than we were then. That is to say, the context has changed significantly enough.
Additionally, while satire may cause laughter, when done properly that laughter is uncomfortable. Satire is not meant to amuse, but rather to disturb. You're supposed to say to yourself, "Ha ha! That's so funny, because it's so true. Oh my god, it's so true."
-G
P.S.
-G
Just like claiming that a copyright takedown notice is copyrighted content (and therefore cannot be reproduced online or in any other form) they could just claim that the packets they are sending to shut down connections are copyrighted content and decoding them is a circumvention which violates the DMCA. Also, their performance and/or protocol compliance (definitely the latter!) are "trade secrets." Also, you're just trying to make people afraid of the great and trustworthy businesses which are implicitly responsible for our nation's infrastructure, which makes you a terrorist. Enjoy your stay in Hotel Gitmo! Wake-up calls begin at 3AM.
-G
Fit to be tiled?
Augh.
-G
-G
I am not a hard-core gamer. I play games once in a while, I go to a friend's house some weekends and use one of his computers to play games. When I do actually buy a game, I play it pretty hard for a couple few days, then I lose interest and wander off. I have no idea what the current hot new releases are, or what have you. I just don't pay attention or care.
Here's the thing: because I'm just not that interested, I don't go to the local EB at the mall. The physical boxes there have *no* presence in my life. However, I downloaded Steam cause I was mildly curious. I have bought more games over Steam in the past year than I had purchased at retail in the previous *decade*. It is far too easy to open Steam and say, "Hmm, what's on the front-page? Oh, that looks interesting. Only 20 bucks? Okay, I'll buy it." And voila, it's mine. I don't have to go to the store, or anything. I just *buy* it. Way more casual than retail.
What I'm trying to say is that venues such as Steam are so much *better* for attracting the casual gamer. You don't need to attract them long enough to go to the store, pick out the product, stand in line, pay for the thing, etc. You only have to attract them long enough to hit the "Purchase" button. Hell, convince them to store their purchasing information on the server and it's a one-click bonanza! The only problem is that you first have to educate the user that an option such as Steam exists. That just takes time, as does any new marketing method.
Steam is a brilliant idea, and is a great way to capture the casual consumer. One may even argue that retail is better suited to the hard-core gamer, because they're the ones willing to make the trek all the way to the store just for the latest Whatsits 2008: Episode 4.5: The Whatsening: Super Gold Edition.
Steam made me buy games I absolutely would not have bought otherwise.
-G
Bummer. I wanted to see the aforementioned clip. :)
-G
They've got eight years of the show archived, and you're not going to provide a link? Come now, that's just being lazy.
-G
This is all well and good, but it completely ignores the fact that if people are pirating music, the artists can't make any money!
-G
Don't forget Alaska. You CAN NOT drive to the lower 48 without passing through Canada, which requires a passport now (also, don't you dare bring guns across that particular border...and a lot of Alaskans own guns. I subsistence hunt, and I would not be willing to give up that source of food just so I can drive to the lower 48 instead of flying.
Otherwise, there's the Alaska Marine Highway, which means it takes the better part of a week to get down there, depending on where precisely you're coming from. Hell...it takes me about 8 hours to fly from the second-largest city in the state to Seattle. Driving that distance, even were it not for the Canada-border thing, is simply not an option in all circumstances. "Hey, boss, I'm taking a week off from work so I can spend a day in Seattle for a funeral. See ya!"
-G
This is entirely my point...in many cases, it is NOT dependant on population density. It is dependant on whether or not they have to bother to compete. In my case, they don't. I either pay for their over-priced "service," or I'm stuck on 56k, dense population or not.
Which, again, is precisely what Verizon is attempting. Do not give these companies ANY good faith. They squandered that long ago. Given the chance, they will do as little as possible to make as much as possible. The vast majority of their revenue from your bill consists of the overhead cost of providing service, not the incremental upgrades. That is, if they charge you $40 to provide service, and $10 for each incremental upgrade, they would just as soon scrap the upgrades, charge the base cost for the base service, and just charge it to more people (and change their letterhead to read: "Made possible by a monopoly near you"). The only reason they offer the incremental upgrades is for competition.
-G
And even if I do ever get fiber to where I live, it'll probably be a day late and a dollar short, to boot.
-G
Well, your distance from the exchange, anyhow. My point is, I'm less than 2km from one of the most densely populated regions in the area. The only reason they wouldn't have a DSLAM closer than they do is because they have a complete and utter monopoly, which means there is no reason to offer competitive speeds at competitive rates. Instead, they can offer crappy service at highly non-competitive rates. Which is exactly what Verizon is working towards. Once it's an option for an ISP to non-compete and still pull in money hand over fist, THEY WILL.
-G
Well, I don't know about you but after paying my last bill, I feel like I've been drawn and quartered.
-G