RE: "You do NOT have the right to squat in public spaces until the world does things your way, or we'd still have grey-haired hippies camped out all across the nation demanding that you "free the weed." "
Actually everyone has the right to squat in public spaces for as long as they want for any reason. That is, if you support the Constitution.
in a veto-proof manner, after Obama had the language softened, and it doesn't apply to any random American, and it doesn't apply to anyone labeled a 'terrorist', only to people associated with specific terrorist groups.
I don't agree with the slippery slope this legislation started, but please, Enough With the Sensationalism.
It's rather odd that Ebert missed the reason that I and many people I know have stopped going to the theater: All the television-style commercials now shown at the beginning. You know, the kinds of commercials we _don't_ want to see because we thought we were at the theater to see a MOVIE, paying a high ticket price, and paying too much for popcorn and drinks. And then they show us effin commercials lasting 10 minutes long before even the previews start.
Does the movie industry realize how much its customers are INSULTED by having to sit through these ads?
I'm always saddened when I see fellow Americans defending some things that are really indefensible. To pretend that the U.S. is somehow a great democracy is not only shocking, it's untrue. The U.S. today is indeed a corporatocracy and there can be no denial of this reality.
If only my fellow Americans could see my country as clearly as you do. I mean it. Thank you.
To add to what you say, we have a country with a lot of people foaming at the mouth at "big government", when big corporate power is what actually controls our "elected from limited choices" government, and through various strings, controls most of the populace. Corporate media feeds their viewpoint into the minds of the American people continuously, with fewer and fewer outlets of independent thought and investigation.
If we don't start fighting back somehow, we're screwed.
What's going to happen to those who run discussion boards, social sites and the like? How on Earth can they prevent all copyright misuses?
Sometimes copyright infringements are obvious and can be taken down, but there's an awful lot of images and text content that gets placed into discussion posts, and how can administrators really police this? It seems to me that with "Safe Harbor", admins are at least theoretically given a chance by copyright owners to do the right thing.
Is it reasonable to say that SOPA could destroy discourse on the web? Or at least severely dampen it?
Well, it's _becoming_ their fault. It would be foolhardy to say that only the United States needs to be held responsible here, unless you want to deny the state of CO2 pollution in the future. We can't stop the future, so all countries responsible have to deal with this issue.
IQ is not a full accurate measure of one's overall intelligence or capabilities. It is merely one indicator. So you would end up arbitrarily denying voting rights to people, many of which would have sufficient capabilities or experiences to vote even if their IQ wasn't ideal. Also, consider that dumb people can be swayed in any which way, and perhaps ultimately this creates a wash in political decision making over time.
Problems: Who devises the test, and Who handles challenges to the test?
What you want is a tyranny of those who think they are the "smart ones". The so-called "smartest guys in the room" in particular countries have given us two world wars, for starters.
If crowd-sourced democracy was treated like today's citizen initiatives, any "legislation" passed this way would still have to be constitutionally vetted. I'm not sure why there is an assumption that this wouldn't occur.
The problem with consensus models though is that they can cater too much to "tyranny of the minority" or minoritarianism. In other words, a small number of people holding up progress the majority wants. Ultimately, if a majority is continually kept from doing what it wants to do, this can cause far worse issues for the whole society. Of course this doesn't mean the majority should always get its way -- just that it should get its way on a regular basis, in tune with constitutional protections for minorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence?
Very good analysis.
The onus at this point should be The People pushing Congress to write a new bill that reverses the grievous aspects of the NDAA.
Except that it was veto-proof, and the Corporate Media would have burned the country down over him vetoing it.
RE: "You do NOT have the right to squat in public spaces until the world does things your way, or we'd still have grey-haired hippies camped out all across the nation demanding that you "free the weed." "
Actually everyone has the right to squat in public spaces for as long as they want for any reason. That is, if you support the Constitution.
in a veto-proof manner, after Obama had the language softened, and it doesn't apply to any random American, and it doesn't apply to anyone labeled a 'terrorist', only to people associated with specific terrorist groups.
I don't agree with the slippery slope this legislation started, but please, Enough With the Sensationalism.
Re: "between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins."
Hyperbole much? This statement is not only inaccurate. It's patently absurd.
Pro-Corporate Power.
Everyone needs to understand this political code word.
Well, that's what I remember from the last time I went to the movies a few years ago.
It's rather odd that Ebert missed the reason that I and many people I know have stopped going to the theater: All the television-style commercials now shown at the beginning. You know, the kinds of commercials we _don't_ want to see because we thought we were at the theater to see a MOVIE, paying a high ticket price, and paying too much for popcorn and drinks. And then they show us effin commercials lasting 10 minutes long before even the previews start.
Does the movie industry realize how much its customers are INSULTED by having to sit through these ads?
I'm always saddened when I see fellow Americans defending some things that are really indefensible. To pretend that the U.S. is somehow a great democracy is not only shocking, it's untrue. The U.S. today is indeed a corporatocracy and there can be no denial of this reality.
If only my fellow Americans could see my country as clearly as you do. I mean it. Thank you.
To add to what you say, we have a country with a lot of people foaming at the mouth at "big government", when big corporate power is what actually controls our "elected from limited choices" government, and through various strings, controls most of the populace. Corporate media feeds their viewpoint into the minds of the American people continuously, with fewer and fewer outlets of independent thought and investigation.
If we don't start fighting back somehow, we're screwed.
What's going to happen to those who run discussion boards, social sites and the like? How on Earth can they prevent all copyright misuses?
Sometimes copyright infringements are obvious and can be taken down, but there's an awful lot of images and text content that gets placed into discussion posts, and how can administrators really police this? It seems to me that with "Safe Harbor", admins are at least theoretically given a chance by copyright owners to do the right thing.
Is it reasonable to say that SOPA could destroy discourse on the web? Or at least severely dampen it?
Why on Earth does anyone need an automatic weapon?
You're certainly referring to vacation-taking pro George W. Bush.
Or is the problem, the choices... Choices that are largely predetermined by various factors which big business has a lot to do with.
Did you have access to the scientific reports associated with the sugar substitute you just put into your coffee before putting it into your coffee?
You don't trust peer review and the scientific process?
Well, it's _becoming_ their fault. It would be foolhardy to say that only the United States needs to be held responsible here, unless you want to deny the state of CO2 pollution in the future. We can't stop the future, so all countries responsible have to deal with this issue.
Something better: Doing nothing.
IQ is not a full accurate measure of one's overall intelligence or capabilities. It is merely one indicator. So you would end up arbitrarily denying voting rights to people, many of which would have sufficient capabilities or experiences to vote even if their IQ wasn't ideal. Also, consider that dumb people can be swayed in any which way, and perhaps ultimately this creates a wash in political decision making over time.
Problems: Who devises the test, and Who handles challenges to the test?
What you want is a tyranny of those who think they are the "smart ones". The so-called "smartest guys in the room" in particular countries have given us two world wars, for starters.
Why the propaganda and slander? What purpose does this serve?
If crowd-sourced democracy was treated like today's citizen initiatives, any "legislation" passed this way would still have to be constitutionally vetted. I'm not sure why there is an assumption that this wouldn't occur.
Impractical, for one simple reason: Who devises the tests, and who handles challenges to these tests?
We may as well let everyone vote, and do our best to educate who is voting.
You had me with your first two sentences, but see your third and fourth sentences as baseless slander. You have no evidence for these assertions.
The problem with consensus models though is that they can cater too much to "tyranny of the minority" or minoritarianism. In other words, a small number of people holding up progress the majority wants. Ultimately, if a majority is continually kept from doing what it wants to do, this can cause far worse issues for the whole society. Of course this doesn't mean the majority should always get its way -- just that it should get its way on a regular basis, in tune with constitutional protections for minorities.