Unless you're completely ignoring the Constitution, only "The States" can do things not outlined in the constitution. Therefore, the "government" (at least the federal government) is NOT allowed to provide more than just basic rights.
Huh?
There's a right to have a local post office? That's a power right there in Article 1.....
There's a right to regulation of interstate commerce?
"Nobody here disputes that Congress could pass laws to give the FCC such power."
I dispute that.
The FCC's original mission statement is a FAILURE, the "public spectrum" is for all intents and purposes "corporate owned" they failed to manage power and frequency in the "public interest" and you fucking want them to control our networks?
Are you stupid?
Are you trolling? I am going to assume you are not.
The first thing is there is a big difference between whether Congress could Constitutionally impose regulations on interstate commercial communications services (pretty squarely inside the power of Congress to "regulate commerce among the several states") and whether it would be a good idea to do so. Personally I think net neutrality laws as generally proposed are sledgehammers where we need tackhammers. We are dealing with nails instead of wedges for splitting logs.....
However, Congress could do all sorts of things that would be unwise. Presumably Congress could set up an interstate sales tax of 200%. Good idea? Nope. Constitutional? Almost certainly!
I don't like Wickard. I think it's a bad decision, though it's been substantially narrowed in recent rulings. But my main point is it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the FCC can impose net neutrality laws.
Sure, but Congress has to explicitly delegate this power, right? If Congress has not said "The FCC may regulate the internet in any way it wants" then the FCC is presumably bound to whatever specific powers have been delegated. Even if Congress did, the FCC could only regulate the internet in any way it wanted that was within Congressional power to do so. It couldn't implement a "nobody may criticize the FCC rule" for example.
This was a case as to whether Congress delegated that power. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a win for freedom because it prevents executive agencies from writing whatever laws they want under the broadest possible reading of the delegation statutes.
First, Wickard has been wounded by more recent cases (including Lopez, Morrison, and even Raich). In each case, the courts have stood by the Wickard decision but narrowed it to a fairly basic holding, namely that Congress, pursuant its powers to regulate interstate commerce, can regulate the production of goods and services which are likely to "leak out" into the area of interstate commerce. In Raich, for example, Wickard was characterized not as supporting the goal of price support by any means necessary, but rather via the concern that the wheat for personal use would be sold in interstate commerce if there was a surplus.
Wickard was a pretty aweful decision. I don't think anyone here would stand by the dicta in that opinion that Congress could require the purchase of wheat solely in order to increase wheat prices and support farmers, nor is it likely that the current court would pay as much attention to the fact that wheat is pretty fungible that the court did in Wickard. It's an outlier and although it hasn't been formally overturned, I wouldn't read it broadly and expect it to hold up. It should be read narrowly and as characterized in Raich and Morrison.
Secondly Wickard is entirely irrelevant here. The question of whether the FCC can regulate broadband in this fashion is not a commerce clause question, but rather a more general question of separation of powers. I have no doubt that Congress could delegate this power to the FCC, but that is far different from saying they have actually done so.....
Further, I don't understand what the question over whether Congress can properly ban a commercial farmer from growing wheat for personal consumption has any relevance to the question of whether Congress passed a law allowing the FCC to regulate broadband in this manner.
Nobody here disputes that Congress could pass laws to give the FCC such power. At most that's where Wickard would come in but I don't think you'd have to rely on Wickard (which involved interstate commerce powers and growing a portion of one's wheat crop for personal use-- while I think Wickard was wrongly decided, it isn't really relevant here). However here you have money clearly changing hands for a service, which involves interstate communication. That's pretty uncontroversially inside the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Wickard was at its basis a question of the scope of powers that Congress had under the "necessary and proper" clause as it relates to interstate commerce. It was a Constitutional question.
However the FCC can only act on powers specifically delegated to them by Congress. Unless Congress acts, the FCC cannot. That would pose other problems including separation of powers issues.
This decision here involving Comcast was a good one. It ensures that elected lawmakers make the laws, rather than unelected beaurocrats. Whether or not you like the immediate outcome, it seems like supporting the idea that Congress makes the laws and the FCC only acts pursuant to them is a good thing. Anyone really disagree with that?
Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.
Is this about web sites? Or about bittorrents, P2P sharing of movies, botnets, and the like?
If Comcast is censoring web sites without specific contracts to customers specifying it as a service (such as a parental controls service) then I would agree that they are being evil. OTOH, if this is about traffic shaping to ensure that web site access is available regardless of botnet, movie sharing, etc. activity, then I fail to see the problem.
Still, the VDM books are EXPENSIVE for what they offer. I wouldn't mind offering to reprint public domain works, but their books are way out of what a reasonable price range would be....
That's when you mention QUEL and I don't have the faintest idea what it is.
Yep. The NoSQL crowd seems to be unhappy with relational data management. The idea of PostgreSQL going NoSQL by moving back to QUEL is one of the funniest jokes I have seen in a long time. And most people didn't get it because they don't know what QUEL is......
I have never worked with QUEL but it seems that there are only a few things that need fixing with it to make it a very, very nice (near perfect) relational db interface language.
Truck drivers have been using CB two-way radios for quite some time. While texting is a different issue (and I do support a ban there), I don't understand how CB radio would be different, re accident rates than a cell phone call on speakerphone.
Is there any evidence that banning CB radios would actually make our roads safer? Or do we allow such radios just because they aren't "phones?"
It wouldn't be that bad. The old versions of Postgres actually used QUEL so I would expect they would go back to Postgres95 then see what needed to be done to map the new syntax into the planning trees. Honestly a QUEL module would be pretty cool.
So please don't try the pathetic attempt to equate your driver skills with a trained professional.
I live in a place where such a ban is in place. The problem is the ban is toothless. It has not changed the number of drivers using phones at all. A ban is only as good as the enforcement. Politically it is not very attractive to be handing out tickets to a large percentage of the population.
My state now requires formal training for commercial vehicle permits. I would think truck drivers would hence qualify as "trained professionals."
However, do I understand your concern as one which would suggest that individuals should be allowed to complete training and get a "cell phone use" endorsement on their drivers' licenses?
1) QUEL is a relational query language (in some ways better than SQL and in some ways worse). Moving to QUEL would moving away from SQL without moving away from relational modelling.
2) Back in the day, Postgres didn't support SQL and only supported a dialect of QUEL called PostQUEL.
This is one of the best satires of the NoSQL movement I have read to date. If it doesn't give you an eerie retro feeling, you don't have enough background to get the jokes.
MySQL has been forked, but you also have to fork the storage engines, and a lot of the proprietary apps would suddenly go away. Maybe web hosts would be less likely to support it.
I don't think MySQL would be fundamentally different than OpenSolaris in this way....
So: do you think police officers should get a free pass in non-emergency situations? If a dispatch request comes in and it is not flagged 'EMERGENCY' should the officer have to pull over in order to confirm that he is going to be en route?
Honestly, the statistics out so far is that cell phone bans do not reduce accident rates. Texting bans might just because it is a lot more awkward to text. However, with a standard speakerphone, I have a hard time imagining that cell phone usage is much more dangerous than either talk radio or interactive foreign language courses neither of which is anyone attempting to ban (and for a number of good reasons).
I think that would be OK for purposes of deploying and coordinating those policemen in emergency situations, in the same way it's OK for them to run red lights under those circumstances.
So only for emergency situations where they are allowed to disregard traffic laws otherwise? IOW, to talk on the radio absent such a situation, they have to pull over?
Take away the radio? Aside from the lobbyists that will have your head from Pioneer, Sony, et al.... Wtf do you do to entertain yourself for long drives. If if didn't have the radio or aux input I'd probably end up going crazy and never reaching my destination.
Your crazy CVR idea aside, it's called OnStar and plenty of people yank them from vehicles for good reason.
First, if the goal is to prevent dangers due to distracted drivers, the idea is not crazy in the least: It does just that very, very well. Minimize the distractions, and the danger from distracted drivers goes way down. Sure other dangers might go up instead and the net result may be less safe roads, but the danger from distracted (as opposed to hypnotized) drivers would go way down...
The point of the post was to show where this goes if you take it to its logical conclusion: start insisting that automobiles have all the same safety devices as commercial airliners, and the same rules (sterile cockpit, cockpit voice recorders, etc.). I believe that such would be entirely Unconstitutional as well as making us less safe, but the situation is already one where people are looking at metrics which are too underinclusive so we could clearly get there.
your misrepresenting the situation. the driver has to glance at his speedo to tell if he is speeding. he does NOT need to be talking on his phone (without a hands free kit) while driving.
So you have no problem with him talking on his hands-free cell phone, but he can't look down at the radio to change the station?
Slashdot Mirror
Such conditions should be made up front, not 14 years later....
If the federal government gives you a tax credit for one reason or another, do they then get an additional say in how you run your life?
Huh?
There's a right to have a local post office? That's a power right there in Article 1.....
There's a right to regulation of interstate commerce?
Have you even read the Constitution?
Are you trolling? I am going to assume you are not.
The first thing is there is a big difference between whether Congress could Constitutionally impose regulations on interstate commercial communications services (pretty squarely inside the power of Congress to "regulate commerce among the several states") and whether it would be a good idea to do so. Personally I think net neutrality laws as generally proposed are sledgehammers where we need tackhammers. We are dealing with nails instead of wedges for splitting logs.....
However, Congress could do all sorts of things that would be unwise. Presumably Congress could set up an interstate sales tax of 200%. Good idea? Nope. Constitutional? Almost certainly!
I don't like Wickard. I think it's a bad decision, though it's been substantially narrowed in recent rulings. But my main point is it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the FCC can impose net neutrality laws.
Sure, but Congress has to explicitly delegate this power, right? If Congress has not said "The FCC may regulate the internet in any way it wants" then the FCC is presumably bound to whatever specific powers have been delegated. Even if Congress did, the FCC could only regulate the internet in any way it wanted that was within Congressional power to do so. It couldn't implement a "nobody may criticize the FCC rule" for example.
This was a case as to whether Congress delegated that power. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a win for freedom because it prevents executive agencies from writing whatever laws they want under the broadest possible reading of the delegation statutes.
First, Wickard has been wounded by more recent cases (including Lopez, Morrison, and even Raich). In each case, the courts have stood by the Wickard decision but narrowed it to a fairly basic holding, namely that Congress, pursuant its powers to regulate interstate commerce, can regulate the production of goods and services which are likely to "leak out" into the area of interstate commerce. In Raich, for example, Wickard was characterized not as supporting the goal of price support by any means necessary, but rather via the concern that the wheat for personal use would be sold in interstate commerce if there was a surplus.
Wickard was a pretty aweful decision. I don't think anyone here would stand by the dicta in that opinion that Congress could require the purchase of wheat solely in order to increase wheat prices and support farmers, nor is it likely that the current court would pay as much attention to the fact that wheat is pretty fungible that the court did in Wickard. It's an outlier and although it hasn't been formally overturned, I wouldn't read it broadly and expect it to hold up. It should be read narrowly and as characterized in Raich and Morrison.
Secondly Wickard is entirely irrelevant here. The question of whether the FCC can regulate broadband in this fashion is not a commerce clause question, but rather a more general question of separation of powers. I have no doubt that Congress could delegate this power to the FCC, but that is far different from saying they have actually done so.....
Further, I don't understand what the question over whether Congress can properly ban a commercial farmer from growing wheat for personal consumption has any relevance to the question of whether Congress passed a law allowing the FCC to regulate broadband in this manner.
Nobody here disputes that Congress could pass laws to give the FCC such power. At most that's where Wickard would come in but I don't think you'd have to rely on Wickard (which involved interstate commerce powers and growing a portion of one's wheat crop for personal use-- while I think Wickard was wrongly decided, it isn't really relevant here). However here you have money clearly changing hands for a service, which involves interstate communication. That's pretty uncontroversially inside the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Wickard was at its basis a question of the scope of powers that Congress had under the "necessary and proper" clause as it relates to interstate commerce. It was a Constitutional question.
However the FCC can only act on powers specifically delegated to them by Congress. Unless Congress acts, the FCC cannot. That would pose other problems including separation of powers issues.
This decision here involving Comcast was a good one. It ensures that elected lawmakers make the laws, rather than unelected beaurocrats. Whether or not you like the immediate outcome, it seems like supporting the idea that Congress makes the laws and the FCC only acts pursuant to them is a good thing. Anyone really disagree with that?
Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.
Is this about web sites? Or about bittorrents, P2P sharing of movies, botnets, and the like?
If Comcast is censoring web sites without specific contracts to customers specifying it as a service (such as a parental controls service) then I would agree that they are being evil. OTOH, if this is about traffic shaping to ensure that web site access is available regardless of botnet, movie sharing, etc. activity, then I fail to see the problem.
Still, the VDM books are EXPENSIVE for what they offer. I wouldn't mind offering to reprint public domain works, but their books are way out of what a reasonable price range would be....
Yep. The NoSQL crowd seems to be unhappy with relational data management. The idea of PostgreSQL going NoSQL by moving back to QUEL is one of the funniest jokes I have seen in a long time. And most people didn't get it because they don't know what QUEL is......
I have never worked with QUEL but it seems that there are only a few things that need fixing with it to make it a very, very nice (near perfect) relational db interface language.
Now to put one of those in my car....
Now, what problem were you trying to solve?
Truck drivers have been using CB two-way radios for quite some time. While texting is a different issue (and I do support a ban there), I don't understand how CB radio would be different, re accident rates than a cell phone call on speakerphone.
Is there any evidence that banning CB radios would actually make our roads safer? Or do we allow such radios just because they aren't "phones?"
It wouldn't be that bad. The old versions of Postgres actually used QUEL so I would expect they would go back to Postgres95 then see what needed to be done to map the new syntax into the planning trees. Honestly a QUEL module would be pretty cool.
I would settle for a PL/PGQUEL module though.
The other half will be hosted by Topeka book services....
My state now requires formal training for commercial vehicle permits. I would think truck drivers would hence qualify as "trained professionals."
However, do I understand your concern as one which would suggest that individuals should be allowed to complete training and get a "cell phone use" endorsement on their drivers' licenses?
Did you know that at first, Postgres supported QUEL (a dialect they called PostQUEL) instead of SQL?
Honestly a move to QUEL support wouldn't be so bad. It would mostly be problematic because of the additional learning curve.
Nah, he was just expressing his dismay with his dcvs and wishing his project would move to bzr ;-) or even svn ;-)
1) QUEL is a relational query language (in some ways better than SQL and in some ways worse). Moving to QUEL would moving away from SQL without moving away from relational modelling.
2) Back in the day, Postgres didn't support SQL and only supported a dialect of QUEL called PostQUEL.
This is one of the best satires of the NoSQL movement I have read to date. If it doesn't give you an eerie retro feeling, you don't have enough background to get the jokes.
MySQL has been forked, but you also have to fork the storage engines, and a lot of the proprietary apps would suddenly go away. Maybe web hosts would be less likely to support it.
I don't think MySQL would be fundamentally different than OpenSolaris in this way....
So if I hire a cab, I am not allowed to talk on my cell phone because you find that annoying?
that's absurd.
So: do you think police officers should get a free pass in non-emergency situations? If a dispatch request comes in and it is not flagged 'EMERGENCY' should the officer have to pull over in order to confirm that he is going to be en route?
Honestly, the statistics out so far is that cell phone bans do not reduce accident rates. Texting bans might just because it is a lot more awkward to text. However, with a standard speakerphone, I have a hard time imagining that cell phone usage is much more dangerous than either talk radio or interactive foreign language courses neither of which is anyone attempting to ban (and for a number of good reasons).
So only for emergency situations where they are allowed to disregard traffic laws otherwise? IOW, to talk on the radio absent such a situation, they have to pull over?
Sure.... That has a chance of passing....
First, if the goal is to prevent dangers due to distracted drivers, the idea is not crazy in the least: It does just that very, very well. Minimize the distractions, and the danger from distracted drivers goes way down. Sure other dangers might go up instead and the net result may be less safe roads, but the danger from distracted (as opposed to hypnotized) drivers would go way down...
The point of the post was to show where this goes if you take it to its logical conclusion: start insisting that automobiles have all the same safety devices as commercial airliners, and the same rules (sterile cockpit, cockpit voice recorders, etc.). I believe that such would be entirely Unconstitutional as well as making us less safe, but the situation is already one where people are looking at metrics which are too underinclusive so we could clearly get there.
So you have no problem with him talking on his hands-free cell phone, but he can't look down at the radio to change the station?