They're being presented with a choice of a) the Republican candidate, or b) the Democratic candidate. Both are in the pockets of innumerable special interests.
In addition, there's a body of circumstantial evidence that indicates that, even if the voters exercise their "choice", the outcome is determined by those who control the voting mechanisms.
Local elections are probably the most democratic avenues available...which is why the Federal government has been systematically dismantling their effectiveness since Roosevelt.
"Microsoft didn't have the hipster cred that apple did"
The cart, she's before the horse.
Apple's offerings became popular because they were well designed, and easy to use. This created the "hipster cred" you refer to (I guess...I don't really know if I'd recognize "hipster cred" if I saw it).
Apple saw an opportunity, and took it. You still have the option to not do business with them. Everybody is free to act as they please. What's the problem?
"she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM."
iPods play MP3s just fine. What "rights and freedoms" are you talking about? Are they at all similar to the rights and freedoms that would be restricted if you were to buy something from one of the DRM vendors that is compatible with your Zen Micro?
Freedom of the Press was not intended to have some chartered entity called "The Press" who was Free. The intent was to have every person (note: not every citizen, every PERSON) Free to do as they will, both in Speech and using the Press.
Other industries are not the same as last-mile telco networks. I'm not at ALL satisfied with the status quo...we've got a perfect storm of corporate greed and government regulation. However, I do not share your faith that somehow, magically, the market will prevail.
There are a few natural monopolies. This is one of them. It needs to be returned to the public trust. (Electrical utilities work pretty good, don't they? Would that high-speed internet was as reliable. Yes, I'm excluding California, which has their own set of home-made stupidities.)
If you can't see the difference between the market for plumbers, and the market for telecommunications services, I question your ability to make intelligent comparisons.
Magically turning off regulation will not cause last-mile networks to spontaneously generate in the ground. Those networks are obscenely expensive to build, which is why the original build-out was subsidized by us taxpayers. The payback for the taxpayers was supposed to be reasonable prices from the telcos, which hasn't happened.
Did you completely sleep through that part where AT&T was allegedly broken up into a big pile of colluding CLECs, and then glommed back together into AT&T? What is your prototype for a competitive market in last-mile networks?
"It's not your fault you can't understand how a free market works, because of government regulation you've never seen it in action."
I've also never seen the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny, and I'm not going to rely on either of those fictional entities to prevent corporate hegemony.
If we had effective anti-trust regulation, I would be much more sanguine about allowing a free-for-all. Since we don't, and there's nothing preventing the telcos and the cable companies (assuming there's a meaningful distinction between them now) from simply dividing the spoils and charging whatever they feel like, I'll take regulation.
"Firstly, in a free unregulated market, the corporations don't control things"
There's your fundamentally flawed assumption. In a free and unregulated (telco) market, the corporations control THE MARKET. That's all they need to control.
"Do you really want a bunch of people in their 50s-70s who don't understand even the most basic of technologies involved with the internet to control it?"
How's this different than what we have now? Oh, you're talking about the government, not the telco executives. You're also assuming that those two groups are distinct.
"Regardless of whatever flaws ISPs may have,"
There's that funny plural again. You say ISPs, as if there are many options.
"and are willing to take risks to get a greater profit"
You can't possibly be serious. We're talking about TELCOS. The only way they know how to make money is to have somebody making a law that makes it impossible for them to not make money.
"who if given choices"
Uh huh. Lots of choices. Let them eat cake!
"In the free unregulated market"
Right, because that's REALLY what the telcos want. A free, unregulated market. Do you seriously, really, for true believe that they have your interests at heart?
Slashdot Mirror
"The special interests really do not have nearly the control that the voters have"
Are you kidding? Doesn't matter who gets elected, the special interests will just buy the winner.
"Special interests do not keep congressmen in office."
Maybe, maybe not, but special interests run Congress.
"The voting process is sound."
Well, thanks for clearing that up for me.
"A grassroots campaign with lots of energetic volunteers can win if it manages to turn out the vote.
That's a beautiful idea. When was the last time it worked at the national level?
They're being presented with a choice of a) the Republican candidate, or b) the Democratic candidate. Both are in the pockets of innumerable special interests.
In addition, there's a body of circumstantial evidence that indicates that, even if the voters exercise their "choice", the outcome is determined by those who control the voting mechanisms.
Local elections are probably the most democratic avenues available...which is why the Federal government has been systematically dismantling their effectiveness since Roosevelt.
My point is that the people are being presented with a false choice.
"but the government still gets yelled at on a regular basis"
You say this as if it's somehow significant.
"Large scale governments have to pander to the will of the people"
They also have to follow the law, or they lose the right to govern at all. What's your point?
"What is it that you want to do, anyway?"
I don't know about the GP, but I'd like a bit of thought to be paid to the ideals of this nation's founding.
Um, that already happens. I use Safari as my primary browser, and it's once in a blue moon that I even have to boot Firefox.
I agree, diversity is indeed a virtue, but bundling with Real? Eww.
You know that Calvary is a hill in Jerusalem, and Cavalry is armored warriors on fast-moving vehicles, right?
"As long as Fox maintains their current level of standards"
Um, you did just catch the part about them partnering with Real?
"Sure, it might be a double standard in some respects, but what isn't these days?..."
Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't I?
"I'd say any way they can get an extra user on Firefox, even underhandedly, is a plus."
Because the end justifies the means.
Why do you care how many other people use Firefox?
There was a great deal of debate about whether or not slaves were Persons. Obviously, the wrong side won that debate, which took way too long to fix.
However, the Constitution clearly does not confer rights on citizens. It protects the natural (inalienable) rights of persons.
Um, OK, but you still used a possessive when you meant to use a plural.
"Microsoft didn't have the hipster cred that apple did"
The cart, she's before the horse.
Apple's offerings became popular because they were well designed, and easy to use. This created the "hipster cred" you refer to (I guess...I don't really know if I'd recognize "hipster cred" if I saw it).
Apple saw an opportunity, and took it. You still have the option to not do business with them. Everybody is free to act as they please. What's the problem?
Right, because if it weren't for mean ol' Steve Jobs, there would be purity and freedom and puppies for everybody.
Uh huh. I'm sure Microsoft would have just gone ahead and not built their own DRM system.
Given the choice between Apple and Microsoft, I'll take Apple every time.
"she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM."
iPods play MP3s just fine. What "rights and freedoms" are you talking about? Are they at all similar to the rights and freedoms that would be restricted if you were to buy something from one of the DRM vendors that is compatible with your Zen Micro?
Wow, that was a nicely formatted five paragraph proof by assertion. Good job.
"It's a good thing that OSX is so easy to reinstall, because users are expected to do it a lot."
What color is the sky on your planet? I can't remember the last time I reinstalled ANY version of MacOS since I bought my first one. In 1993.
You don't like Macs. Fine. Please feel free to not buy one.
"other's acquire."
Other's what acquire?
They don't always wear signs.
Not yet. Just wait.
Freedom of the Press was not intended to have some chartered entity called "The Press" who was Free. The intent was to have every person (note: not every citizen, every PERSON) Free to do as they will, both in Speech and using the Press.
Other industries are not the same as last-mile telco networks. I'm not at ALL satisfied with the status quo...we've got a perfect storm of corporate greed and government regulation. However, I do not share your faith that somehow, magically, the market will prevail.
There are a few natural monopolies. This is one of them. It needs to be returned to the public trust. (Electrical utilities work pretty good, don't they? Would that high-speed internet was as reliable. Yes, I'm excluding California, which has their own set of home-made stupidities.)
If you can't see the difference between the market for plumbers, and the market for telecommunications services, I question your ability to make intelligent comparisons.
Magically turning off regulation will not cause last-mile networks to spontaneously generate in the ground. Those networks are obscenely expensive to build, which is why the original build-out was subsidized by us taxpayers. The payback for the taxpayers was supposed to be reasonable prices from the telcos, which hasn't happened.
Did you completely sleep through that part where AT&T was allegedly broken up into a big pile of colluding CLECs, and then glommed back together into AT&T? What is your prototype for a competitive market in last-mile networks?
"It's not your fault you can't understand how a free market works, because of government regulation you've never seen it in action."
I've also never seen the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny, and I'm not going to rely on either of those fictional entities to prevent corporate hegemony.
If we had effective anti-trust regulation, I would be much more sanguine about allowing a free-for-all. Since we don't, and there's nothing preventing the telcos and the cable companies (assuming there's a meaningful distinction between them now) from simply dividing the spoils and charging whatever they feel like, I'll take regulation.
Actually, "affect" can also be a noun. And "effect" can also be a verb. So, you're pretty well 0 for 2.
"Firstly, in a free unregulated market, the corporations don't control things"
There's your fundamentally flawed assumption. In a free and unregulated (telco) market, the corporations control THE MARKET. That's all they need to control.
"Do you really want a bunch of people in their 50s-70s who don't understand even the most basic of technologies involved with the internet to control it?"
How's this different than what we have now? Oh, you're talking about the government, not the telco executives. You're also assuming that those two groups are distinct.
"Regardless of whatever flaws ISPs may have,"
There's that funny plural again. You say ISPs, as if there are many options.
"and are willing to take risks to get a greater profit"
You can't possibly be serious. We're talking about TELCOS. The only way they know how to make money is to have somebody making a law that makes it impossible for them to not make money.
"who if given choices"
Uh huh. Lots of choices. Let them eat cake!
"In the free unregulated market"
Right, because that's REALLY what the telcos want. A free, unregulated market. Do you seriously, really, for true believe that they have your interests at heart?
"AT&T is running TV ads saying this would mean competition"
Marking the first time in recorded history that AT&T actually wanted competition.
Actually, they don't, they just want to be the monopoly again.