Yes, because we ALL know that Wikipedia is the most accurate, honest, unbiased, and trustworthy source to cite, especially in regard to emotionally charged current events?
I was going to point this out, but I am glad you did. I am a hardcore libertarian, but we must admit that this isn't really the free market at work, so a different set of rules tend to apply. The telcos are a government granted oligopoly and thus there is no real competition.
Yes - Most Congressmen are attorneys and they tend to complicate things. They also tend to complicate things in FAVOR of their largest donors.
In fact the government created the problem here in the first place. The telcos and backbone providers are all government-granted monopolies. In a free market, this wouldn't even be an issue because there would be enough true competition where everyone would play fair.
A monopoly does NOT mean "a single a sole supplier". A monopoly means 85% or more of the market share if I remember correctly from econ101.
And in a free market, competition usually prevents a true monopoly from lasting very long. This assumes that the monopoly is not coercive or predatorial, which in the US is illegal. The true problem causers are the government granted monopolies such as telcos, tv/radio outlets, cable companies, utility providers, oil companies, etc. None of these companies exist in the free market thus can do whatever they please pending the amount of money donated to their congressmen.
Government-granted monopolies stifle free market competition. TRUE monopolies that occur in the free market and are NOT supported by the gov are not very long-lived, nor do they have a very tight grip on the market.
The problem comes in when the corporate-funded Congressmen decide to insert a clause in the legislation that goes something like "existing telcos/cable companies etc may retain common carrier status". Or perhaps even "common carrier" status is completely redefined to mean something other than what we think it is.
With Congress, there is no telling. This is why the government needs to start automatically deregulating things, stop propping up government granted monopolies, and allow the technological free-market to work itself out.
The majority of his corruption and criminal acts took place under the Clinton admin. So if anyone is "to blame" for letting this continue it's Clinton. And it could also be spun such that the Bush admin actually pursued him thus are the 'heroes' for taking down a 'villain".
Personally, I leave politics out of it and try not to attribute things like this to politicians I either support or oppose, it helps keep me from making an ignorant ass of myself like you just did.
I was talking about "theft of identity" not "using an identity in a fraudulent manner to commit theft". And you are right, fraud usually does lead to theft. But stealing someone's identity is near impossible.
And both theft and fraud are criminal and should be treated as such.
Merriam Websters defines theft as: "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
When you use someone else's identity in a fraudulent manner, the original person STILL HAS THEIR IDENTITY!!! It is NOT THEFT, because you have not taken anything from them, they are deprived of nothing (except maybe some abstract type of sovereign individualism). But you are using their identity, and so are they!
I think the fundamental issue here is that information, once in the open, logically belongs to no one nor can it really be 'possessed'.
Fraud |= theft. In plain English, fraud does not equal theft.
It's the same as the copyright argument. You cannot steal someone's identity. You can use it frauduantly. You can pose as someone you are not. You can give false witness. But identity fraud ISN'T!
My guess is that the cloud tolerances are strictly "too tight" in order to maintain a positive visual on the shuttle as it makes it's way into orbit. My guess is that the reasoning of this is that if the shuttle goes behind a cloud even for half of a second, that is long enough to have a piece of foam damage the orbiter and not get noticed by NASA's telescopic/high speed chase cameras.
While I agree that the "cloud factor" might be a bit too constricting, I think they want the ability to keep a very close eye on the bird during launch. Also, lightning is prevalent in Florida and can strike miles away from clouds, I don't know what kind of static wicks/lightning protection system the STS has. That could be another reason to have a low cloud tolerance.
While I agree that it is a statistical improbability that the average American will be killed by terrorism, killing people isn't really the objective. Look at the root word: "terror" or "fear".
Terrorists want to inflict fear in the general populace in order to create unrest and keep their cause fresh in everyones mind.
And while the amount of Americans killed by a terrorist attack each year really do not justify the amoutn of money spent on anti-terrorist activities (I'm not being crass here - compare the ratio to gun safety, auto accidents, other types of non-natural deaths etc), terrorism does have a profound effect on our economy. It is this overall affect on our society which makes terrorism so front-and-center. Unfortunately that is the ultimate goal of terrorism, to be on the top of everyone's mind.
Non-violent offenders such as this guy should not go to jail. They should be held accountable for their actions through financial restitution.
"Nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the early release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts
We should dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.
Restitution, even if enforced through court action, deters criminals and decreases the necessity of actually going to court. Japan, which has such a system in place, is the only industrialized nation that has seen a consistent decrease in violent crime since World War II. Litigants normally come to a settlement before coming in front of the judge, so very little time is spent in court.
Why should victims have to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and shelter those who harmed them? Why should criminals get a free ride at the further expense of their victims?
People have a right to their life, liberty and property. Anyone who takes these away has an obligation to restore them as much as possible. Such restitution will not always be perfect, but the punishment fits the crime much better than today's system does.
In addition, restitution is a more effective deterrent than prison. During informal surveys, inmates claimed that they much preferred jail time, which they saw as 'time off,' than restitution, which they saw as 'work.
Restitution through productive work is the most successful rehabilitation known. Even if the victim can't be fully compensated, something is better than the nothing that they receive today. Also, repayment to the victim allows criminals to truly right their wrongs. "
The FCC and the SEC sort of make sense. But the rest of it is a stretch beyond what is reasonable according to the Const.
The FCC truly is "interstate" as not having the spectrum regulated would be pure chaos. I can sort of understand and even agree to an extent about the FCC. I am talking about the FCC of old that just stuck to spectrum management, not the current FCC which is attempting to regulate content and free speech. Now, if the FCC never would've come about, I think that the free market would've provided a solution in the form of enterprising and innovative technology. For example, we would probably have spread-spectrum technology years ago where many transmissions can occupy the same bands without stepping on each other. Or perhaps even other ideas where everyone could use the spectrum in a manner without stepping on each others toes. Of course if a transmitter in another state refused to comply, there would be no recourse really. It is an interesting idea to ponder over.
The SEC sort of makes sense because it is indeed interstate "commerce" in a way. In fact there are a lot of foreign investments in the market so it could even be considered "international" commerce. I do think that the current SEC is far-reaching and over protecting, but I can understand its justification for existence.
For most of the rest of the Fed, there is no excuse or justification.
Unfortunately the fed has a much longer history of expanding its powers unconstitutionally than just FDR. The other Roosevelt was notorious for doing this, along with a lot of the early politicians in the early part of the 20th century.
But even Lincoln violated the Constitution by not allowing the Southern states to secede from the Union. There are other instances of this prior to that I am sure (think national bank) but can't off the top of my head recall any of them.
But, just because the government has a long history of abusing/expanding their power doesn't mean that it should continue. It also doesn't mean it's right. And finally every effort should be made to stop it.
Courts can be wrong. Slavery and other such laws that were found OK, and then found Unconstitutional many years later. That means that even though the court has ruled, it hasn't always made the correct ruling.
I'm a little late only because I'm 24 years old. If I had been born earlier then I would've started railing on over-expansive, intrusive, and far-reaching government years ago.
Now is my chance, and I am hoping others in my generation will follow suit after they realize how redicilious and illogical the current government is, not to mention how bad we are all being screwed.
The second sentence you post talks about the judiciary which has nothing to do with Congress (directly).
The first one talks about Congress and what it can and can't do. "General welfare" might seem like an arbitrary term now, but I am confident that it was very specific when it was written. I wish they had specified scope of that term along with the scope of the phrase "interstate commerce". Those are the two most abused phrases in Congress.
What does Bush have to do with this? The issue is about Congress. Bush only has anything to do with this if it passes the legislature and he actually signs it into law.
I think all legislation should have a preface which explains how that specific legislation is within the bounds of Article I, Section 8 of the Const. Being forced to rationalize each piece of legislation and how it is a function of the government as set forth by our founding documents is important. I also think our courts need to have more integrity and overturn ANY legislation that does not have a direct derivation from one of those specific powers.
The Net was largely setup with public funds and research (think DARPA/ARPA and universities). But more specifically, the issue is that the telco providers have a government granted monopoly on a large portion of the backbone. Therefore the infrastructure of the Net is not really in the "free market" unfortunately. This GREATLY complicates things and whenever the government gets involved, you can be sure that the general public is usually getting the shaft and special interests (read large telcos) are being pandered to.
The solution is to limit the government to its original and minimal functions as set forth by our Founding Fathers in the DoI and US Const.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because we ALL know that Wikipedia is the most accurate, honest, unbiased, and trustworthy source to cite, especially in regard to emotionally charged current events?
*rolling eyes*
You are correct.
I was going to point this out, but I am glad you did. I am a hardcore libertarian, but we must admit that this isn't really the free market at work, so a different set of rules tend to apply. The telcos are a government granted oligopoly and thus there is no real competition.
You are a genius, and if you were running for office you would get my vote.
= 15660441
There is a bit of a caveat which is adequately pointed out here:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190337&cid
The government created the problem because the telcos are a government-granted oligopoly.
Yes - Most Congressmen are attorneys and they tend to complicate things. They also tend to complicate things in FAVOR of their largest donors.
In fact the government created the problem here in the first place. The telcos and backbone providers are all government-granted monopolies. In a free market, this wouldn't even be an issue because there would be enough true competition where everyone would play fair.
A monopoly does NOT mean "a single a sole supplier". A monopoly means 85% or more of the market share if I remember correctly from econ101.
And in a free market, competition usually prevents a true monopoly from lasting very long. This assumes that the monopoly is not coercive or predatorial, which in the US is illegal. The true problem causers are the government granted monopolies such as telcos, tv/radio outlets, cable companies, utility providers, oil companies, etc. None of these companies exist in the free market thus can do whatever they please pending the amount of money donated to their congressmen.
Exactly! And that is the fundamental difference.
Government-granted monopolies stifle free market competition. TRUE monopolies that occur in the free market and are NOT supported by the gov are not very long-lived, nor do they have a very tight grip on the market.
You have a good point.
The problem comes in when the corporate-funded Congressmen decide to insert a clause in the legislation that goes something like "existing telcos/cable companies etc may retain common carrier status". Or perhaps even "common carrier" status is completely redefined to mean something other than what we think it is.
With Congress, there is no telling. This is why the government needs to start automatically deregulating things, stop propping up government granted monopolies, and allow the technological free-market to work itself out.
I don't know what that has to do with anything.
The majority of his corruption and criminal acts took place under the Clinton admin. So if anyone is "to blame" for letting this continue it's Clinton. And it could also be spun such that the Bush admin actually pursued him thus are the 'heroes' for taking down a 'villain".
Personally, I leave politics out of it and try not to attribute things like this to politicians I either support or oppose, it helps keep me from making an ignorant ass of myself like you just did.
No drugs...
I was talking about "theft of identity" not "using an identity in a fraudulent manner to commit theft". And you are right, fraud usually does lead to theft. But stealing someone's identity is near impossible.
And both theft and fraud are criminal and should be treated as such.
Merriam Websters defines theft as: "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
When you use someone else's identity in a fraudulent manner, the original person STILL HAS THEIR IDENTITY!!! It is NOT THEFT, because you have not taken anything from them, they are deprived of nothing (except maybe some abstract type of sovereign individualism). But you are using their identity, and so are they!
I think the fundamental issue here is that information, once in the open, logically belongs to no one nor can it really be 'possessed'.
Fraud |= theft. In plain English, fraud does not equal theft.
It's the same as the copyright argument. You cannot steal someone's identity. You can use it frauduantly. You can pose as someone you are not. You can give false witness. But identity fraud ISN'T!
Prof: "Here is my latest invention, the smell-o-scope. We can smell Saturn, Jupiter, and my favorite..."
Fry: "Oh no, I am not going to sniff Uranus"
Prof: "huh"
Fry: "Uranus, the planet?!"
Prof: "Oh, yes, we changed that planet's name in 2026 to get rid of that joke once and for all."
Fry: "What did you change it to?"
Prof: "Urectum"
My guess is that the cloud tolerances are strictly "too tight" in order to maintain a positive visual on the shuttle as it makes it's way into orbit. My guess is that the reasoning of this is that if the shuttle goes behind a cloud even for half of a second, that is long enough to have a piece of foam damage the orbiter and not get noticed by NASA's telescopic/high speed chase cameras.
While I agree that the "cloud factor" might be a bit too constricting, I think they want the ability to keep a very close eye on the bird during launch. Also, lightning is prevalent in Florida and can strike miles away from clouds, I don't know what kind of static wicks/lightning protection system the STS has. That could be another reason to have a low cloud tolerance.
While I agree that it is a statistical improbability that the average American will be killed by terrorism, killing people isn't really the objective. Look at the root word: "terror" or "fear".
Terrorists want to inflict fear in the general populace in order to create unrest and keep their cause fresh in everyones mind.
And while the amount of Americans killed by a terrorist attack each year really do not justify the amoutn of money spent on anti-terrorist activities (I'm not being crass here - compare the ratio to gun safety, auto accidents, other types of non-natural deaths etc), terrorism does have a profound effect on our economy. It is this overall affect on our society which makes terrorism so front-and-center. Unfortunately that is the ultimate goal of terrorism, to be on the top of everyone's mind.
Here is a site which tests your subconsciousness with regard to hypnotics!
http://r33b.net/
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
Non-violent offenders such as this guy should not go to jail. They should be held accountable for their actions through financial restitution.
t .php
"Nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the early release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts
We should dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.
Restitution, even if enforced through court action, deters criminals and decreases the necessity of actually going to court. Japan, which has such a system in place, is the only industrialized nation that has seen a consistent decrease in violent crime since World War II. Litigants normally come to a settlement before coming in front of the judge, so very little time is spent in court.
Why should victims have to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and shelter those who harmed them? Why should criminals get a free ride at the further expense of their victims?
People have a right to their life, liberty and property. Anyone who takes these away has an obligation to restore them as much as possible. Such restitution will not always be perfect, but the punishment fits the crime much better than today's system does.
In addition, restitution is a more effective deterrent than prison. During informal surveys, inmates claimed that they much preferred jail time, which they saw as 'time off,' than restitution, which they saw as 'work.
Restitution through productive work is the most successful rehabilitation known. Even if the victim can't be fully compensated, something is better than the nothing that they receive today. Also, repayment to the victim allows criminals to truly right their wrongs. "
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_lis
The FCC and the SEC sort of make sense. But the rest of it is a stretch beyond what is reasonable according to the Const.
The FCC truly is "interstate" as not having the spectrum regulated would be pure chaos. I can sort of understand and even agree to an extent about the FCC. I am talking about the FCC of old that just stuck to spectrum management, not the current FCC which is attempting to regulate content and free speech. Now, if the FCC never would've come about, I think that the free market would've provided a solution in the form of enterprising and innovative technology. For example, we would probably have spread-spectrum technology years ago where many transmissions can occupy the same bands without stepping on each other. Or perhaps even other ideas where everyone could use the spectrum in a manner without stepping on each others toes. Of course if a transmitter in another state refused to comply, there would be no recourse really. It is an interesting idea to ponder over.
The SEC sort of makes sense because it is indeed interstate "commerce" in a way. In fact there are a lot of foreign investments in the market so it could even be considered "international" commerce. I do think that the current SEC is far-reaching and over protecting, but I can understand its justification for existence.
For most of the rest of the Fed, there is no excuse or justification.
Unfortunately the fed has a much longer history of expanding its powers unconstitutionally than just FDR. The other Roosevelt was notorious for doing this, along with a lot of the early politicians in the early part of the 20th century.
But even Lincoln violated the Constitution by not allowing the Southern states to secede from the Union. There are other instances of this prior to that I am sure (think national bank) but can't off the top of my head recall any of them.
But, just because the government has a long history of abusing/expanding their power doesn't mean that it should continue. It also doesn't mean it's right. And finally every effort should be made to stop it.
Yes it is unfortunate.
Courts can be wrong. Slavery and other such laws that were found OK, and then found Unconstitutional many years later. That means that even though the court has ruled, it hasn't always made the correct ruling.
I'm a little late only because I'm 24 years old. If I had been born earlier then I would've started railing on over-expansive, intrusive, and far-reaching government years ago.
Now is my chance, and I am hoping others in my generation will follow suit after they realize how redicilious and illogical the current government is, not to mention how bad we are all being screwed.
What is your point?
The second sentence you post talks about the judiciary which has nothing to do with Congress (directly).
The first one talks about Congress and what it can and can't do. "General welfare" might seem like an arbitrary term now, but I am confident that it was very specific when it was written. I wish they had specified scope of that term along with the scope of the phrase "interstate commerce". Those are the two most abused phrases in Congress.
This guy is running for Congress and is a programmer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badnarik
What does Bush have to do with this? The issue is about Congress. Bush only has anything to do with this if it passes the legislature and he actually signs it into law.
I think all legislation should have a preface which explains how that specific legislation is within the bounds of Article I, Section 8 of the Const. Being forced to rationalize each piece of legislation and how it is a function of the government as set forth by our founding documents is important. I also think our courts need to have more integrity and overturn ANY legislation that does not have a direct derivation from one of those specific powers.
I think the problem is a bit deeper than that.
The Net was largely setup with public funds and research (think DARPA/ARPA and universities). But more specifically, the issue is that the telco providers have a government granted monopoly on a large portion of the backbone. Therefore the infrastructure of the Net is not really in the "free market" unfortunately. This GREATLY complicates things and whenever the government gets involved, you can be sure that the general public is usually getting the shaft and special interests (read large telcos) are being pandered to.
The solution is to limit the government to its original and minimal functions as set forth by our Founding Fathers in the DoI and US Const.