Any time a groups gets into the role of over-functioning for another, the other group starts to under-function. This isn't limited to IT and corporations. It would explain, among other things, why the poorest and most dependent folks in NO, were not more proactive with their own future in that disaster, instead waiting on the Government and charities to over-function for them. That choice was much more risky for them than just getting out of town earlier like many others decided to do on their own.
Very funny kmccammon; the "White Paper" has a green web background.
Who's to blame for the Internet needing saving?
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
First, I'm not sure it's in real nead to be saved. It is evolving. New technologies are replacing old ones. More people are sending email with phones than reading usenet news with rn or nn on Wise green text terminals. Oh, I'm so scared.
Second, Arguements about cable open access, etc, are really the same arguement as access to any restricted markets, public utilities, telcos, cable, airline, radio, tv, and medical sectors. By the way how many of you want to start your own hospital or electric company? Some serious barriers are there. Not the least of which is capital.
However, it was once said that there is money waiting in banks earning very little interest waiting for people with vision and good ideas. Ideally if you had the expertise to enter one of these markets, and really knew your stuff you could get the other resources you needed with investors.
However, the current Government says it is in the public good I'm not allowed to start my own radio station and likewise not in the public good to start my own private water company (pipes not bottles). Why?
That's it really, financial and other resources aside, why?
Simple. In the USA anyway. The people, most of them, don't care. They don't have 28 year expirations anymore, as the article points out the founders intended, because they don't want it. What????? Point the finger at the people.
Why not, it is a democratically elected represented government. Electoral College issues aside *sigh*, the US congress and even most state govenments are run by people the citizens locally elect. The citizens think MICKEY MOUSE is cool, so why penailze Disney by putting the mouse into the public domain.
But isn't this a really interesting theory, if it really is ultimately the people who are the problem, then doesn't something like the Electoral College make sense. The idea there being that the people were either too ignorant or had little to no economic, that is to say property, to have a real interested in their own welfare, so obviously those with an interest and the mind/knowledge should do it for them. The latter property issue being a good justification to not allowing people who are flat broke from voting, as they will only vote for freebees and handouts rather than the public good. Oooooopsss isn't that what one US polical party has been accusing the the other of doing, encouraging in fact that kind of voting record, say in Labor Unions, the black community, the poor. Oh how this is all so relevant to modern politics.
But I digress, back to the third point, or was it the fourth. The people, the mob, can at times be morons when it comes to politics. So why not have those with the citizens best interests at heart make the decisions for them. This works, that is to say the Electoral College idea works only in theory. As we have seen it worked out over time, the political theory and the practical reality are different. Even though the College has failed, the underlying problem it addressed, that the people were going to vote or not vote, active apathy, for things not in their best interests still exists. People still don't care their US House just did XYZ; or their US Congressman ABC.
They are all just a bunch of [enter negative view of government comment here]. The funny thing with that is the Government, as it relates to the democrative (gov theoy here, not party) process the peole are the reason it has the negatives in the first place.
So anyone have a better idea? Pure rule directly by the people fails, apparently the voter apathy or outright bad voting decisions seem to get in the way again. So much for the classical right. What about the glorious socialism touted by the classical left as successful in those great economical bastions of Scandinavia for example. My guess is it can't scale, look at China and the failure of socialist solutions in the United States. You don't even have to look across the country, in terms of scale, to see it. Even in relatively small m
Dr. Bernstein's cryptography lawsuit vs US Gov.
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In a 2-to-1 vote, a federal panel affirmed U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel's 1997 landmark ruling in Daniel Bernstein vs. the Justice Department. That decision states that software source code is a language, and therefore the export controls violate the University of Illinois math professor's First Amendment right.
Like most rights, the right to freedom of movement can be regulated by the state, and like most rights it can be forfeited if one violates the rights of others, or violates the regulations set by the state.
Very well written reply. What I'm not sure I agree with fundamentally is the notion that freedom should be restricted by "regulations" carte blanc. If the "regulations" are designed for the purpose of keeping people from violating the rights of others, then I'm all for it. But when I think of the "rights of others" I'm thinking of all of a person's freedoms in all of its potentiality. In my mind, that is in fact the best use of law in society, the protection of freedom for those under that law. Freedom this broadly defined obviously includes protection from unwarrented harm or death. (I say unwarrented, because if I was to exercise my freedom of driving my car off a cliff and to my death, that is certainly a warrented death, as I voluntarily constructed it myself for the benefit of myself. So I am drawing a distinction from the moral/ethical/resonsible praxis and the unrestricted potential freedom to exercise. Ethically I would not make this decision with my car and a cliff, even though I could.)
I know it is not the common view at all, but I would prefer to employ all possible means other than government legislation or new laws when dealing with currently regulated economic or social complexities. With your examples: The government currently regulates the air waves, but the benefit, as you put it "facilitate the use of the airwaves" to "publish their opinions". That benefit should be weighted against the price. The price here is obviously the removal of freedom or "rights" for anyone to unrestrictedly broadcast or intercept airwaves. Is "the facilitation of use" of the airwaves worth the price that we no longer have freedom to use them? Many agree that yes, it is better to have regulation of a thing with less freedom, than the freedom with no regulation. After all there is that benefit, you argue, of easier "free speech" perhaps with the compromise of how we can use the airwaves. However is it logical to give up broad freedom (in this example to start my own radio broadcast) in order to facilitate or protect a specific freedom (also in this example the right to unfettered speech)? Even though it could be argued both ways, what is also a point of impact is the reality of the implementation. In this case the regulation of the radio does not facilitate the broad and unfettered access of people to use the airwaves. Granted we are allowed in most developed nations to use a specific radio signal band, but in terms of the mentioned benefit of freedom of speech; that in reality is controlled by radio conglomerates and wealthy individuals and businesses, who at any rate can afford the heafty fees of getting a license in the first place and then paying for it annually. In reality I don't have an major broadcast right at all, because I submitted myself to the "regulation" of the airwaves for the benefit of "all". If the "all" never includes me, or never includes someone else under the law, is that really freedom? I say it is not. Freedom implies the ability to exercise, not to the privileged but to everyone equally and at any time.
What I disagree with, not that you argued this, is the seemingly flippant treatment of freedom in general. When people band together voluntarily to submit themselves to law and regulations, they do so with the price of a loss of some freedoms, inherint freedoms I would argue. This is not all bad, as we don't want people exercising their freedom of weilding sharp knives into people's bodies. We want that one restricted, so killing people without any 'good' reason is against the law. 'Good' of course varying widely in place and time. I believe what is appropriate to have under the law, should be always argued to the minimum in terms of broad categories of legislation or regulation because of the price. Freedom isn
The people own the cars and collectively own the roads (taxes), why isn't it a 'right'?
Who's to say they don't have that right? In countries with democratic elements such as GB, it seems to me the people make the laws (either directly or indirectly), fund the enforcement of the laws through taxes, so why shouldn't they ultimately have the rights over their life; in this case the part of life while they are driving?
I've never understood this immediate knee jerk reaction that since someone once said "driving is not a right", that we should all bow down to it as though it is true.
ANPR can detect number plates even when vehicles are being driven at more than 100mph - and it can check up to 3,000 plates every hour.
3000 / 60 min / 60 sec =.83333
I don't know about where you drive, but I see a heck of a lot more cars than 1 per second flying by on highways at non-rush hour times.
Personally, I think their current system, this expansion and the whole concept of congestion billing is based upon the ignorant position that the government can usurp arbitrary amounts of people's freedom and liberty for their duties. In my country (USA) the soverign are the people and the government get is rights only from the pleasure of the people. The power structure is clear. The citizenry is the ultimate power in the USA, constitutionally speaking, the government by design is the servent of the people to carry out their wishes.
This view of the world in Britian and I must admit and certain socialist parties here in the US (DNC for example) is the exact opposite, presupposing that the citizenry is ignorant and certainly in a position of inferiority to the all-knowing all-powerfull Government. BAH! They vote there, in Great Britian, just like the rest of us; they want it they can have it. As for me, I'm voting from freedom and liberity when I have the chance!
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets.
from [ http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html ]
Since you bring them up, also from factbook:
per capita GDP of USA $36,300,
per capita GDP of Germany $26,600,
per capita GDP of Switzerland $31,700,
per capita GDP of Japan $$28,000.
Soooo, I guess I'd have to totally agree with you. The data certainly, in economic terms justifies your point...oh wait a second...my bad...I guess it refutes it. So I'm sure you meant to cite some other measurable source to back up your point other than economics.
And there really isn't a second goolepower. The parallels are obvious. When you have a leader, far ahead, Microsoft Corp., McDonalds, USA, Google, the vast majority benefit from what is involved, but that's not to say a critique won't occure. Indeed, as Google has grown, so has the anti-google-ites. Privacy issues and now issues like knowledge flow manipulation. Obviously, Google is the best and I'll keep using it....Hmmm hasn't that logic been applied to: Microsoft, USA, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Any time a groups gets into the role of over-functioning for another, the other group starts to under-function. This isn't limited to IT and corporations. It would explain, among other things, why the poorest and most dependent folks in NO, were not more proactive with their own future in that disaster, instead waiting on the Government and charities to over-function for them. That choice was much more risky for them than just getting out of town earlier like many others decided to do on their own.
Very funny kmccammon; the "White Paper" has a green web background.
First, I'm not sure it's in real nead to be saved. It is evolving. New technologies are replacing old ones. More people are sending email with phones than reading usenet news with rn or nn on Wise green text terminals. Oh, I'm so scared.
Second, Arguements about cable open access, etc, are really the same arguement as access to any restricted markets, public utilities, telcos, cable, airline, radio, tv, and medical sectors. By the way how many of you want to start your own hospital or electric company? Some serious barriers are there. Not the least of which is capital.
However, it was once said that there is money waiting in banks earning very little interest waiting for people with vision and good ideas. Ideally if you had the expertise to enter one of these markets, and really knew your stuff you could get the other resources you needed with investors.
However, the current Government says it is in the public good I'm not allowed to start my own radio station and likewise not in the public good to start my own private water company (pipes not bottles). Why?
That's it really, financial and other resources aside, why?
Simple. In the USA anyway. The people, most of them, don't care. They don't have 28 year expirations anymore, as the article points out the founders intended, because they don't want it. What????? Point the finger at the people.
Why not, it is a democratically elected represented government. Electoral College issues aside *sigh*, the US congress and even most state govenments are run by people the citizens locally elect. The citizens think MICKEY MOUSE is cool, so why penailze Disney by putting the mouse into the public domain.
But isn't this a really interesting theory, if it really is ultimately the people who are the problem, then doesn't something like the Electoral College make sense. The idea there being that the people were either too ignorant or had little to no economic, that is to say property, to have a real interested in their own welfare, so obviously those with an interest and the mind/knowledge should do it for them. The latter property issue being a good justification to not allowing people who are flat broke from voting, as they will only vote for freebees and handouts rather than the public good. Oooooopsss isn't that what one US polical party has been accusing the the other of doing, encouraging in fact that kind of voting record, say in Labor Unions, the black community, the poor. Oh how this is all so relevant to modern politics.
But I digress, back to the third point, or was it the fourth. The people, the mob, can at times be morons when it comes to politics. So why not have those with the citizens best interests at heart make the decisions for them. This works, that is to say the Electoral College idea works only in theory. As we have seen it worked out over time, the political theory and the practical reality are different. Even though the College has failed, the underlying problem it addressed, that the people were going to vote or not vote, active apathy, for things not in their best interests still exists. People still don't care their US House just did XYZ; or their US Congressman ABC.
They are all just a bunch of [enter negative view of government comment here]. The funny thing with that is the Government, as it relates to the democrative (gov theoy here, not party) process the peole are the reason it has the negatives in the first place.
So anyone have a better idea? Pure rule directly by the people fails, apparently the voter apathy or outright bad voting decisions seem to get in the way again. So much for the classical right. What about the glorious socialism touted by the classical left as successful in those great economical bastions of Scandinavia for example. My guess is it can't scale, look at China and the failure of socialist solutions in the United States. You don't even have to look across the country, in terms of scale, to see it. Even in relatively small m
http://www.eff.org/bernstein/
http://cr.yp.to/export.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-225508.html?legacy=c net
In a 2-to-1 vote, a federal panel affirmed U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel's 1997 landmark ruling in Daniel Bernstein vs. the Justice Department. That decision states that software source code is a language, and therefore the export controls violate the University of Illinois math professor's First Amendment right.Very well written reply. What I'm not sure I agree with fundamentally is the notion that freedom should be restricted by "regulations" carte blanc. If the "regulations" are designed for the purpose of keeping people from violating the rights of others, then I'm all for it. But when I think of the "rights of others" I'm thinking of all of a person's freedoms in all of its potentiality. In my mind, that is in fact the best use of law in society, the protection of freedom for those under that law. Freedom this broadly defined obviously includes protection from unwarrented harm or death. (I say unwarrented, because if I was to exercise my freedom of driving my car off a cliff and to my death, that is certainly a warrented death, as I voluntarily constructed it myself for the benefit of myself. So I am drawing a distinction from the moral/ethical/resonsible praxis and the unrestricted potential freedom to exercise. Ethically I would not make this decision with my car and a cliff, even though I could.)
I know it is not the common view at all, but I would prefer to employ all possible means other than government legislation or new laws when dealing with currently regulated economic or social complexities. With your examples: The government currently regulates the air waves, but the benefit, as you put it "facilitate the use of the airwaves" to "publish their opinions". That benefit should be weighted against the price. The price here is obviously the removal of freedom or "rights" for anyone to unrestrictedly broadcast or intercept airwaves. Is "the facilitation of use" of the airwaves worth the price that we no longer have freedom to use them? Many agree that yes, it is better to have regulation of a thing with less freedom, than the freedom with no regulation. After all there is that benefit, you argue, of easier "free speech" perhaps with the compromise of how we can use the airwaves. However is it logical to give up broad freedom (in this example to start my own radio broadcast) in order to facilitate or protect a specific freedom (also in this example the right to unfettered speech)? Even though it could be argued both ways, what is also a point of impact is the reality of the implementation. In this case the regulation of the radio does not facilitate the broad and unfettered access of people to use the airwaves. Granted we are allowed in most developed nations to use a specific radio signal band, but in terms of the mentioned benefit of freedom of speech; that in reality is controlled by radio conglomerates and wealthy individuals and businesses, who at any rate can afford the heafty fees of getting a license in the first place and then paying for it annually. In reality I don't have an major broadcast right at all, because I submitted myself to the "regulation" of the airwaves for the benefit of "all". If the "all" never includes me, or never includes someone else under the law, is that really freedom? I say it is not. Freedom implies the ability to exercise, not to the privileged but to everyone equally and at any time.
What I disagree with, not that you argued this, is the seemingly flippant treatment of freedom in general. When people band together voluntarily to submit themselves to law and regulations, they do so with the price of a loss of some freedoms, inherint freedoms I would argue. This is not all bad, as we don't want people exercising their freedom of weilding sharp knives into people's bodies. We want that one restricted, so killing people without any 'good' reason is against the law. 'Good' of course varying widely in place and time. I believe what is appropriate to have under the law, should be always argued to the minimum in terms of broad categories of legislation or regulation because of the price. Freedom isn
The people own the cars and collectively own the roads (taxes), why isn't it a 'right'?
Who's to say they don't have that right? In countries with democratic elements such as GB, it seems to me the people make the laws (either directly or indirectly), fund the enforcement of the laws through taxes, so why shouldn't they ultimately have the rights over their life; in this case the part of life while they are driving?I've never understood this immediate knee jerk reaction that since someone once said "driving is not a right", that we should all bow down to it as though it is true.
3000 / 60 min / 60 sec =
Personally, I think their current system, this expansion and the whole concept of congestion billing is based upon the ignorant position that the government can usurp arbitrary amounts of people's freedom and liberty for their duties. In my country (USA) the soverign are the people and the government get is rights only from the pleasure of the people. The power structure is clear. The citizenry is the ultimate power in the USA, constitutionally speaking, the government by design is the servent of the people to carry out their wishes.
This view of the world in Britian and I must admit and certain socialist parties here in the US (DNC for example) is the exact opposite, presupposing that the citizenry is ignorant and certainly in a position of inferiority to the all-knowing all-powerfull Government. BAH! They vote there, in Great Britian, just like the rest of us; they want it they can have it. As for me, I'm voting from freedom and liberity when I have the chance!
And there really isn't a second goolepower. The parallels are obvious. When you have a leader, far ahead, Microsoft Corp., McDonalds, USA, Google, the vast majority benefit from what is involved, but that's not to say a critique won't occure. Indeed, as Google has grown, so has the anti-google-ites. Privacy issues and now issues like knowledge flow manipulation. Obviously, Google is the best and I'll keep using it....Hmmm hasn't that logic been applied to: Microsoft, USA, etc.