It means people who weren't born with a golden spoon in their mouth are able to afford things such as healthcare or, in this case, information. People like you probably consider the law of gravity a form of servitude. Wake up.
Why don't you just say you think a modest amount of involuntary servitude is okay, or that the rich should be made to occasionally serve the poor?
What do governments do? They provide infrastructure. That's one of the reasons they collect taxes. The swedish government collects more taxes, so people expext to get more and better infrastructure. I don't know about you, but I would consider backbones infrastructure... It's something done not for direct profit, but for the convenience of the people.
There are all sorts of conveniences you could apply this same logic to. Why not have a ministry of washing machines, for example? Wouldn't it be a convenience of the people? There is probably an even greater need for washers than broadband.
Other countries work differently, and it might do you well to travel a little outside the US...
And it might do you well to look a bit at the history of economic systems.
"Imagine a country that flies into space, launches Sputniks, creates such a defense system, and it can't resolve the problem of women's pantyhose. There's no toothpaste, no soap powder, not the basic necessities of life. It was incredible and humiliating to work in such a government. And so our people were already worked up, and that is why the dissident movement occurred." -- Mikhail Gorbachev
Re:You don't understand freedom
on
Swedish Pirate Demo
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Freedom, or at least a free society does NOT mean the ability to do whatever you want. That is called Anarchy, and has never worked for a society. A free society is one where the people control the government in an indrect way.
Again you miss the point.
Freedom to do what you want is anarchy.
Freedom FROM others is political freedom.
They are not the same thing.
In the case of publically financing something like broadband access, there will be some people required to pay for it though they do not use it or want it. They are not free in this case from a burden placed on them by others. That burden is in the form of taxes.
They literally are working for someone else without benefit to themselves. That's a form of involuntary servitude.
You totally missed the point.
on
Swedish Pirate Demo
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First, you are not free if you're forced to pay for someone else's high-speed porn link. Freedom is being able to say "no thanks". If the response is "tough luck" then you are not free.
Don't confuse democracy with freedom. They aren't the same unless you mean the majority is free to do whatever it wants to the minority.
Second, if there was enough money available by those that would use such a system, then a private company would step in to provide the service. If there is no such company, then obviously there isn't enough money available by those that would use such a system to fund such a system. Whether the government or company, someone has to get paid to do the work. People don't run fiber for free.
So, where will the extra money come from? It has to come from Tax payers that didn't want the system in the first place. QED they're getting used but you don't care because you're getting your broadband.
Sure, they will get it, too. But their use will be small in proportion to how much they pay. Again, if they thought it was worth it in the first place, there'd be no reason to tax them. They would have paid willingly.
Of course, I mean that _I_ think that more public spending should be directed to internet access. Others disagree. The democratic process will decide how much is budgeted to this particular thing.
It amazes me how easily some people gloss over the fact that they're screwing their neighbors over, but hey, it's ok because the democratic process has decided it's ok.
Through demonstrations, one can voice one's personal opinion. Still, the ultimate decision on what will receive funding is up to democratic elections.
Right, complain all you want, but give us the money or you go to jail.
Most people are more than willing to pay for that through their taxes.
Apparently they are not, otherwise they would already have their broadband connection.
Instead of paying for the connection through taxes, they have the option of paying the private sector. Yet, most of them don't. So why do you think they'll change their minds when they're asked to pay the same amount (probably more) through taxes?
What you really mean is that everyone should pay, to make it affordable to you and others that might use it. So what about those that don't? Tough luck, I guess.
I once worked with a guy that claimed he was a programmer of hand-helds.
He was asked to write a function to calculate the distance between two points.
He didn't know how. So I wrote the formula down for him.
He asked, "What's that?" as he pointed to the square root symbol.
This guy had a high school diploma. Now how the hell do you get through high school not knowing how to calculate distance? How do you graduate not knowing WHAT A SQUARE ROOT SYMBOL LOOKS LIKE?
American schools aren't being honest with their students. Feelings come before making sure student get a good education.
And if it has anything to do with the government, it must be eeeeeeeeeevil.
Of course, if it's run by corporate assholes who just want to sell you crap, then it's ok
The difference is that the corporate assholes don't threaten you with jail if you don't give them money to fund advanced-finger-painting-for-dyslexic-crack-whore- mothers-with-ADD.
You can say always say "no thanks" to a corporate asshole trying to sell you crap.
Um, the actual employment (FICA) tax rate is more like 15.3%. Your employer "pays half" which means YOU really pay it, you just don't see it on your pay check stub.
Oh, I mostly agree.
What ends up happening is that the productive people in the economy eventually end up supporting the unproductive. The games the government plays, like the "pays half" crap, don't change the fact that the money spent puts a burden on the effort of workers.
What's sad is that workers don't even know they're working for free when it's happening right in front of their faces.
Consider Joe burger-flipper that's paying his 6% or whatever. A senior comes in to buy The Senior's burger with the social security money he just got in the mail. Joe does the work to make the burger. Then senior pays and goes on his way. Repeat next month.
What happened here? Joe just worked for free making that burger. If you follow the money, that's basically what happened. The senior is giving Joe back the money he got from Joe's taxes. In exchange, Joe does labor for the senior. When Joe get's paid, that 6% comes out so Joe can make more free burgers when those seniors bring back that tax money and the cycle repeats.
Before Dean was submarined by rest of the Democrat candidates, he talked about reforming payroll taxes.
It's a shame he was so beaten up over this, because he was right on.
Payroll taxes punish employment. The tax rate might seem small (about 6.5%), but considering most corporate revenue goes to pay wages, this becomes huge money.
Further consider just how poorly corporations compensate shareholders. For the S&P 500, the average dividend rate is just 1.5%, so a 6.5% tax on wages is gigantic relatively speaking.
It's obvious that when a company has a choice, they're going to try to avoid this tax and that means greater unemployment here.
Even when they don't have an outsourcing option, they always have a downsizing option.
Dean was right and it's ashame politics ruined a great chance for discussion about reform.
There are such "zones". In the US, they are called "States".
I think if you were to go back 200 years, states would be the appropriate "zones".
The trouble is that there are many states that have populations comparable to that of small countries. Florida, for example has something like 12 million people.
I will say I think it showed a lot of wisdom on the part of the founders to have such a system where states were allowed a large amount of "local rule".
But again, states have just gotten too big to be appropriate. That's why I think cities and towns (and unincorporated areas) make good "zones".
Unfortunately, you cannot have liberty without security. So you need to choose which liberties are more important.
The problem is that everyone is being asked to make the same chose when there is obviously great disagreement as to what are the appropriate trade-offs.
I prefer a system that allows for this diversity of opinion.
People in different parts of the country have different ideas about the balance between security, freedom, and privacy.
I don't see why there couldn't be "zones" where local people decide just what that balance should be. Maybe it would work best at the city or town level.
The people of LA, SF, and New Orleans, for instance would probably be willing to take more risk than the people of Nashville or Lakeland, FL. Why can't they have different standards?
Now I realize it might be impractical for things like air-travel. A plane can fly coast to coast, so everyone under it's path has an interest in the standards used to admit passengers, but there are plenty of other things that can still be a local decision.
If the people of LA don't want ID cards, then let them take the risks associated with not having those cards. If the people of Nashville want cards to feel safer, then let them.
So long as people are allowed to choose what set of rules they want to live under, I don't see a problem.
People today have been brainwashed by MTV and all that crap into thinking you should grow up and want to be a rap star or a movie star, and that people that like math and science and engineering are rejects of society, in America, being dumb is good, look at all the idiotic business majors that all they can do is talk smooth.
You just fell into the same trap, except your target is "business majors".
Hey, they're an important part of society, too. We need financial engineers. It isn't a simple thing to bring people and resources together to produce all those cell phones and computers.
And guess what, they're also less popular than rap and movie stars. In fact, they're regularly villified. Engineers are rarely made out to be the cause of every ill, but "big business" and "evil corporations" seem to be responsible for everything that goes wrong.
Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said:
"There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body.
We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.
We strive to be like all our brother men, for all men must be alike. Over the portals of the Palace of the World Council, there are words cut in the marble, which we repeat to ourselves whenever we are tempted:
"WE ARE ONE IN ALL AND ALL IN ONE.THERE ARE NO MEN BUT ONLY THE GREAT _WE_,ONE, INDIVISIBLE AND FOREVER."
We repeat this to ourselves, but it helps us not...
As more and more resources are being allocated to "special ed" for those who underperform because such spending is mandatory under various laws, I notice that the programs for the overperformers are being cut back repeatedly because they are strictly optional. I wonder how many future whiz-kids we're losing to the fact that they're getting bored in too-dumb-for-them mainstream classes and therefore goofing off with their extra time instead of being given work that's at their actual mental level rather than their age's level.
Public school isn't about teaching the exceptional kids. I never has been.
Read about the history of public education and it's purpose. It has nothing to do with individual achievement. In fact, it isn't about individual anything. It's just the opposite.
Consider the history of the pledge of allegiance that kids are asked to recite in in public school. The message is that your group (nation) comes first.
Now, we can't have exceptional people making the rest of the group look bad, can we?
People need to realize that most kids don't have a desire to learn these things, and most teachers don't have a desire to teach. Kids go because it's publicly funded babysitting, teachers go to get paid. At some point grades become relevant, and kids learn to do whatever it is they have to do to pass the classes. When it becomes necessary to accomplish some goal, the material will be learned.
If we did, for some reason, decide to make an point of 'teaching' our kids, by somehow giving them a real reason to learn and the teachers a real reason to teach, it'd be amazing the knowledge that could be imparted. I don't see any reason why a 10 year old cant do calculus, other than they're "not prepared yet."
Better "curriculum materials" aren't the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but it should somehow involve rewarding kids for learning and rewarding teachers for teaching, which just doesn't happen in our current system.
I wish I still had mod points to give you because what you say is right on.
I live in Los Angeles and communicate with an FWD SIP with which I call a conference in Japan almost daily. Latency with that is very low, and that's with a free service!
But your situation is unlikely to be the most common.
Being on the west coast, you're probably just a few hops from a trans-Pacific link directly to Japan. You have what amounts to a nearly direct link from one place to another.
According to the US DoE the domestic electricity prices ($/kWh) in 2000 were 0.102 in France and 0.082 in the US, not counting state taxes in the latter case. That doesn't seem like a sufficiently large price difference to explain the lower use of AC in France.
But look back a little further. The price in 1995 was as high as $0.167/kWh. That's nearly twice as much as what the US was paying at the same time. Now I realize you might object that that was several years ago, but ask yourself this: how long does it take for people to respond to decreases in energy costs before they decide to buy an air-conditioner? 1 year, 2 years, 3 years? How long? A history of high energy prices probably discouraged buying air-conditioners even after prices began to decline.
In 1999 the price was still at $0.121/kWh. It's only come down recently because France has begun to liberalize energy production.
Still even with all that the price is about 25% higher. That might not seem like a lot, but keep in mind the per capita GDP of France is only about 71% that of the US, so there is less money to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
It means people who weren't born with a golden spoon in their mouth are able to afford things such as healthcare or, in this case, information. People like you probably consider the law of gravity a form of servitude. Wake up.
Why don't you just say you think a modest amount of involuntary servitude is okay, or that the rich should be made to occasionally serve the poor?
At least that would be honest.
What do governments do? They provide infrastructure. That's one of the reasons they collect taxes. The swedish government collects more taxes, so people expext to get more and better infrastructure. I don't know about you, but I would consider backbones infrastructure... It's something done not for direct profit, but for the convenience of the people.
There are all sorts of conveniences you could apply this same logic to. Why not have a ministry of washing machines, for example? Wouldn't it be a convenience of the people? There is probably an even greater need for washers than broadband.
Other countries work differently, and it might do you well to travel a little outside the US...
And it might do you well to look a bit at the history of economic systems.
"Imagine a country that flies into space, launches Sputniks, creates such a defense system, and it can't resolve the problem of women's pantyhose. There's no toothpaste, no soap powder, not the basic necessities of life. It was incredible and humiliating to work in such a government. And so our people were already worked up, and that is why the dissident movement occurred." -- Mikhail Gorbachev
Freedom, or at least a free society does NOT mean the ability to do whatever you want. That is called Anarchy, and has never worked for a society. A free society is one where the people control the government in an indrect way.
Again you miss the point.
Freedom to do what you want is anarchy.
Freedom FROM others is political freedom.
They are not the same thing.
In the case of publically financing something like broadband access, there will be some people required to pay for it though they do not use it or want it. They are not free in this case from a burden placed on them by others. That burden is in the form of taxes.
They literally are working for someone else without benefit to themselves. That's a form of involuntary servitude.
First, you are not free if you're forced to pay for someone else's high-speed porn link. Freedom is being able to say "no thanks". If the response is "tough luck" then you are not free.
Don't confuse democracy with freedom. They aren't the same unless you mean the majority is free to do whatever it wants to the minority.
Second, if there was enough money available by those that would use such a system, then a private company would step in to provide the service. If there is no such company, then obviously there isn't enough money available by those that would use such a system to fund such a system. Whether the government or company, someone has to get paid to do the work. People don't run fiber for free.
So, where will the extra money come from? It has to come from Tax payers that didn't want the system in the first place. QED they're getting used but you don't care because you're getting your broadband.
Sure, they will get it, too. But their use will be small in proportion to how much they pay. Again, if they thought it was worth it in the first place, there'd be no reason to tax them. They would have paid willingly.
Of course, I mean that _I_ think that more public spending should be directed to internet access. Others disagree. The democratic process will decide how much is budgeted to this particular thing.
It amazes me how easily some people gloss over the fact that they're screwing their neighbors over, but hey, it's ok because the democratic process has decided it's ok.
Through demonstrations, one can voice one's personal opinion. Still, the ultimate decision on what will receive funding is up to democratic elections.
Right, complain all you want, but give us the money or you go to jail.
Most people are more than willing to pay for that through their taxes.
Apparently they are not, otherwise they would already have their broadband connection.
Instead of paying for the connection through taxes, they have the option of paying the private sector. Yet, most of them don't. So why do you think they'll change their minds when they're asked to pay the same amount (probably more) through taxes?
What you really mean is that everyone should pay, to make it affordable to you and others that might use it. So what about those that don't? Tough luck, I guess.
Sorry, but here, "you made it, I want it" will always trump the principle that people ought to be compensated for their creative works.
I once worked with a guy that claimed he was a programmer of hand-helds.
He was asked to write a function to calculate the distance between two points.
He didn't know how. So I wrote the formula down for him.
He asked, "What's that?" as he pointed to the square root symbol.
This guy had a high school diploma. Now how the hell do you get through high school not knowing how to calculate distance? How do you graduate not knowing WHAT A SQUARE ROOT SYMBOL LOOKS LIKE?
American schools aren't being honest with their students. Feelings come before making sure student get a good education.
It's dishonest.
And if it has anything to do with the government, it must be eeeeeeeeeevil.
- mothers-with-ADD.
Of course, if it's run by corporate assholes who just want to sell you crap, then it's ok
The difference is that the corporate assholes don't threaten you with jail if you don't give them money to fund advanced-finger-painting-for-dyslexic-crack-whore
You can say always say "no thanks" to a corporate asshole trying to sell you crap.
Trying saying "no thanks" to the government.
Al Queda have been saying this for about 10 years.
Radical Islam prefers that everyone worship Allah. They'll let no one be.
Just imagine Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson except that they want to send you to hell rather than save you from it.
The amusing part though is that your sig points to a page that apparently does believe that there should be a single standard for everyone.
Then you haven't really looked at the page.
Note to the US Government, leave the Arabs alone and the "terrorism" problem just goes away.
I'm sure they'll leave Israel be, too.
You're very naive.
Really, why must there be a single standard for everyone?
Let them be.
347 m/s speed of sound in air
*
60 ms of time
=20.82 meters
Um, the actual employment (FICA) tax rate is more like 15.3%. Your employer "pays half" which means YOU really pay it, you just don't see it on your pay check stub.
Oh, I mostly agree.
What ends up happening is that the productive people in the economy eventually end up supporting the unproductive. The games the government plays, like the "pays half" crap, don't change the fact that the money spent puts a burden on the effort of workers.
What's sad is that workers don't even know they're working for free when it's happening right in front of their faces.
Consider Joe burger-flipper that's paying his 6% or whatever. A senior comes in to buy The Senior's burger with the social security money he just got in the mail. Joe does the work to make the burger. Then senior pays and goes on his way. Repeat next month.
What happened here? Joe just worked for free making that burger. If you follow the money, that's basically what happened. The senior is giving Joe back the money he got from Joe's taxes. In exchange, Joe does labor for the senior. When Joe get's paid, that 6% comes out so Joe can make more free burgers when those seniors bring back that tax money and the cycle repeats.
Before Dean was submarined by rest of the Democrat candidates, he talked about reforming payroll taxes.
It's a shame he was so beaten up over this, because he was right on.
Payroll taxes punish employment. The tax rate might seem small (about 6.5%), but considering most corporate revenue goes to pay wages, this becomes huge money.
Further consider just how poorly corporations compensate shareholders. For the S&P 500, the average dividend rate is just 1.5%, so a 6.5% tax on wages is gigantic relatively speaking.
It's obvious that when a company has a choice, they're going to try to avoid this tax and that means greater unemployment here.
Even when they don't have an outsourcing option, they always have a downsizing option.
Dean was right and it's ashame politics ruined a great chance for discussion about reform.
There are such "zones". In the US, they are called "States".
I think if you were to go back 200 years, states would be the appropriate "zones".
The trouble is that there are many states that have populations comparable to that of small countries. Florida, for example has something like 12 million people.
I will say I think it showed a lot of wisdom on the part of the founders to have such a system where states were allowed a large amount of "local rule".
But again, states have just gotten too big to be appropriate. That's why I think cities and towns (and unincorporated areas) make good "zones".
Unfortunately, you cannot have liberty without security. So you need to choose which liberties are more important.
The problem is that everyone is being asked to make the same chose when there is obviously great disagreement as to what are the appropriate trade-offs.
I prefer a system that allows for this diversity of opinion.
Why must everything be on a national scale?
People in different parts of the country have different ideas about the balance between security, freedom, and privacy.
I don't see why there couldn't be "zones" where local people decide just what that balance should be. Maybe it would work best at the city or town level.
The people of LA, SF, and New Orleans, for instance would probably be willing to take more risk than the people of Nashville or Lakeland, FL. Why can't they have different standards?
Now I realize it might be impractical for things like air-travel. A plane can fly coast to coast, so everyone under it's path has an interest in the standards used to admit passengers, but there are plenty of other things that can still be a local decision.
If the people of LA don't want ID cards, then let them take the risks associated with not having those cards. If the people of Nashville want cards to feel safer, then let them.
So long as people are allowed to choose what set of rules they want to live under, I don't see a problem.
People today have been brainwashed by MTV and all that crap into thinking you should grow up and want to be a rap star or a movie star, and that people that like math and science and engineering are rejects of society, in America, being dumb is good, look at all the idiotic business majors that all they can do is talk smooth.
You just fell into the same trap, except your target is "business majors".
Hey, they're an important part of society, too. We need financial engineers. It isn't a simple thing to bring people and resources together to produce all those cell phones and computers.
And guess what, they're also less popular than rap and movie stars. In fact, they're regularly villified. Engineers are rarely made out to be the cause of every ill, but "big business" and "evil corporations" seem to be responsible for everything that goes wrong.
That reminds me of the short-story Anthem.
Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said:
"There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body.
We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.
We strive to be like all our brother men, for all men must be alike. Over the portals of the Palace of the World Council, there are words cut in the marble, which we repeat to ourselves whenever we are tempted:
"WE ARE ONE IN ALL AND ALL IN ONE.THERE ARE NO MEN BUT ONLY THE GREAT _WE_,ONE, INDIVISIBLE AND FOREVER."
We repeat this to ourselves, but it helps us not...
As more and more resources are being allocated to "special ed" for those who underperform because such spending is mandatory under various laws, I notice that the programs for the overperformers are being cut back repeatedly because they are strictly optional. I wonder how many future whiz-kids we're losing to the fact that they're getting bored in too-dumb-for-them mainstream classes and therefore goofing off with their extra time instead of being given work that's at their actual mental level rather than their age's level.
Public school isn't about teaching the exceptional kids. I never has been.
Read about the history of public education and it's purpose. It has nothing to do with individual achievement. In fact, it isn't about individual anything. It's just the opposite.
Consider the history of the pledge of allegiance that kids are asked to recite in in public school. The message is that your group (nation) comes first.
Now, we can't have exceptional people making the rest of the group look bad, can we?
There is some (admittedly extreme) history of the pledge of allegiance here. I don't buy into all of it, but it does say something about the purpose of public eduation, and it has nothing to do with individual success.
People need to realize that most kids don't have a desire to learn these things, and most teachers don't have a desire to teach. Kids go because it's publicly funded babysitting, teachers go to get paid. At some point grades become relevant, and kids learn to do whatever it is they have to do to pass the classes. When it becomes necessary to accomplish some goal, the material will be learned.
If we did, for some reason, decide to make an point of 'teaching' our kids, by somehow giving them a real reason to learn and the teachers a real reason to teach, it'd be amazing the knowledge that could be imparted. I don't see any reason why a 10 year old cant do calculus, other than they're "not prepared yet."
Better "curriculum materials" aren't the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but it should somehow involve rewarding kids for learning and rewarding teachers for teaching, which just doesn't happen in our current system.
I wish I still had mod points to give you because what you say is right on.
Ping times to the internet never exceed 100ms on a properly designed mesh network.
So, that means we have to add 100 ms latency to everthing, right?
That's already getting close to the edge of what is considered tolerable.
I live in Los Angeles and communicate with an FWD SIP with which I call a conference in Japan almost daily. Latency with that is very low, and that's with a free service!
But your situation is unlikely to be the most common.
Being on the west coast, you're probably just a few hops from a trans-Pacific link directly to Japan. You have what amounts to a nearly direct link from one place to another.
Innocents get killed regularly by people running from police.
Maybe police should tag the cars of those that run, then stop the chase. They could then track the car later at sane speeds.
According to the US DoE the domestic electricity prices ($/kWh) in 2000 were 0.102 in France and 0.082 in the US, not counting state taxes in the latter case. That doesn't seem like a sufficiently large price difference to explain the lower use of AC in France.
But look back a little further. The price in 1995 was as high as $0.167/kWh. That's nearly twice as much as what the US was paying at the same time. Now I realize you might object that that was several years ago, but ask yourself this: how long does it take for people to respond to decreases in energy costs before they decide to buy an air-conditioner? 1 year, 2 years, 3 years? How long? A history of high energy prices probably discouraged buying air-conditioners even after prices began to decline.
In 1999 the price was still at $0.121/kWh. It's only come down recently because France has begun to liberalize energy production.
Still even with all that the price is about 25% higher. That might not seem like a lot, but keep in mind the per capita GDP of France is only about 71% that of the US, so there is less money to begin with.