Why no link to this "Konqueror" thing? Anyway, I always have active scripting and 'paste operations via script' disabled. One or the other (or both) keeps pop-ups from......uhhhhh, popping up. It very rarely causes any problems with websites, as far as I can see. I'm no expert on this stuff, though. If I ever get any problems, it takes about 5 seconds to enable it again. Or I can add the site to the trusted list and my paranoid security settings won't affect it.
Centralization of information is not a good thing. Choosing convenience over one's own responsibility to better themself leads to Time Warner, News Corporation, or Microshit filtering the world down into 60 second news flashes and 'smart tags', that give me all the information that corporate profiteers see fit to give consumers; it makes life easier by removing any need to think for yourself.
On that note, I'm starting to understand why people don't like John Katz articles. There is a very simple point here, and I feel I pretty much covered it in my first paragraph. I will say that John is a journalist worthy of a TV news network. I can see the MSNBC news coming on -- flashy computer graphics accentuating the importance of the upcoming report that will surely detail breaking news of Earth's impending doom. The faces of well known media icons, complete with concerned looks on their faces, are super-imposed over the computer generated eyecandy as a parade of 3D letters come together to form the sparkling title of tonight's headline story: "The Poverty of Attention" Viewers at home watch intently as the images of importance that surround this story push the details of an earlier 'E! Entertainment News' interview with Tom Cruise out of their bloated pea-brains to make room for the storage of what will obviously be the most important broadcast of their life thusfar. The anchor doesn't let them down of course; even the most insignificant world event can be made to look like a milestone; it just takes a little pontification, and a barrage of buzz-phrases like "technologically-driven ADD" (oooooo), and "Attention Economy" (aaaahhhh) directed at the audience. They'll be locked in place, eyes glued to the television; eating up every tidbit of non-information. And when it's over they'll be dumber because of it.
At this rate there's no need to worry about a "Nike solar system" or a "Microsoft galaxy". Just let'em all launch themselves into deep space on rockets fueled by egotism.
That's a gutsy statement from a slashdot reader, that probably realizes that corporations can lobby for laws like the DMCA, and then prosecute people, and prompt raids to confiscate and arrest people who have DVD's that are region-coded for another country. Then there's the poison water and dead ecosystems from oil spills, the Nike sweatshops, the Gap sweatshops, the genetically altered food that isn't labelled because genetics isn't an exact science and corporations afraid that if people knew what was genetically 'enhanced' their profits would suffer. Did I mention that the corporations that make genetically altered foods are in this business because their previous business of making chemical weapons dried up? Then there's corporate welfare. Examples of this include billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's successful effort to build a $300 million dollar stadium for his billionaire Seattle Seahawks, and have taxpayers foot the bill. Corporate Welfare costs the country at least $150 billion a year, and it goes to companies like GM, IBM, AT&T, GE, and Motorola, to name a few. Drug companies and HMO's lobby on a daily basis to increase profit at the expense of human lives. They profit fine in Canada, despite being required to actually make life saving medicine affordable. You might've heard about elderly people taking buses there to get pills. Tobacco companies planned advertising campaigns to specifically target 11-18 year olds, and when the research on the results came out, when the lawsuits started flying, they bought off congress to bring the backlash to an end.
To say that any of this is the product of a free country and a government not empowered to take away rights is naive. The founders never meant for corporations to have rights. WHY SHOULD THEY? Why should an entity comprised of people who ALL have rights that are absolute have rights of it's own!? It's NOT EVEN A PERSON. And in fact the founders understood that business HAD to be regulated in order to preserve democracy for everyone, from a farmer to a CEO. But greed won out, and now we get all our news and information from corporate elitists. And people have a distorted view of democracy; believing that profiteers somehow have their best interests in mind, 'surely they're not driven by PROFIT and profit alone! Damn that evil government for picking on a poor multinational corporation!' And with attitudes like that none of it will change until corporations ARE the government.
Think of it this way; we all hate an oppressive government. This is America. Echelon, Carnivore, they both deserve to be brought to an end. The thing is, if you have a beef with the government in a democracy, you can run for office and change the government. At least you used to be able to. But ask any politician of any party what it takes to win an election, and they will tell you that these days, the guy with the most money wins. And where does that money come from? Corporations.
Do you opt-in by going to the doctor? Because that information is up for bid too. Do you opt-in by visiting a website that uses cookies and web-bugs?
Do you even bother to have a bank account, or do you consider THAT opting in? Oh, I forgot, you can go to the 'mom and pop' banks. Yeah, I sure know a lot of those. I do know a few that are lesser known names, and guess what, they're owned by the more well-known names.
Ever bought clothes? Here's a few places that would love to have your financial information, and I'm betting that they're dresses don't come with a fine print disclaimer.
"No one repors without you ALLOWING THEM by opening the account and accepting the terms and limitations"
That is the most naive quote in this thread. Plenty of them do, and you only need to read the story itself to know that they don't need your permission at all, and didn't need to even notify you until July 1st, AFTER they have your information.
Even someone as dim-witted as you can understand that no matter how many times a person opts out, there will be profiles of information from companies that don't respect an opt-out request, and information only stops piling up after an opt-out notice. Therefore the bottom line is that you still consider the 4th amendment to be negotiable, and I think you're completely aware of how you've skewed libertarian stance to oppose a federal government and support a corporate one. I'll say it one more time; YOU are a PLUTOCRAT.
Seeing that you're a libertarian, let's compare the 4th amendment to the 2nd amendment in order to get the point across. You defend a practice that infringes on peoples' 4th amendment rights because, in true libertarian form, people have an (obscure) ability to preserve their rights by opting out; which results in most (not all) of their privacy being returned to them. Of course, the bottom line is that you support it because you support plutocracy.
So anyway, what would you say if the Government were allowed to take into it's possession, every firearm owned by any US Citizen? That's a rhetorical question of course, because I know that multiple blood vessels in your head would explode simultaneously. But if that situation were to arise: Well, hey, don't fret! All people have to do is send a notice to the FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOD, NSA, and ATF, opting out of having their right to bear arms taken away. Then, most of your guns would be returned, but maybe a few would have clips loaded with paint-balls.
So the core issue here is that you, as a libertarian, are saying that some rights deserve to be defended and some do not.
You are correct, sir. Now it's time to bottle up your anger, and release it in the ear of your Senators and Representatives. Also your bank, and anyone else who can't get it through their head.
There's the thing called the 4th amendment.........enforced by the laws of some 'democracy' thing-a-majig, which is taken for granted by people who call restrictions on greed 'communism', but support a system where consumers are forced to have decisions made for them, instead of being allowed to opt-in at their discretion.
What were you reading? I was being sarcastic. And the 'flaw' you think you pointed out is the equivalent of asking me to prove your conspiracy theory. You thinking that other huge corporations have some agenda that would lead them to paying off politicians in order to trigger an antitrust lawsuit against a huge corporation that already deserves an antitrust lawsuit, does not equal a flaw in my arguement. In fact, it's absurd. And you obviously know how to read, so one would think that you had seen the link in my reply that shows how at least one of your examples (AOL), gave less than Microsoft. The others were a waste of time to link, since they would only appear on a very long list, because they didn't give enough to make that 'top 10 donors' page. And that fact is still irrelevant since they could've given twice what Microsoft did, and there would still be no logical reasoning that would lead someone to believe that the message behind the donations was "sue Microsoft for a crime they're already under investigation for."
Are you saying that Democrats are almost as greedy and corrupted as Republicans? My god, what a revelation.
"Oh, and if you read your links, they gave a vast majority of it to the parties in general, not to individuals ($5k limit, it makes it hard to buy people)."
I would say that $5k is plenty, but that's irrelevant since the limit means nothing. And if the limit could work despite non-federal accounts and pseudo-independent PACs, the contributions would still be limitless because, thanks to those loveable lobbyists, contributions are .
"So, if they They bought whatever / whomever they needed, why did this not happen years earlier, ie: before the first verdict?"
Check the original links, which I'm sure you poured over, given your snide response; Microsoft has only been a corrupting force on Capitol Hill for a little less than 2 years.
I didn't appreciate the judge botching this up either, but obviously you have it all figured out. And you're not the only one who shares that opinion of slashdot. Hell, I would say at least 10% of slashdot readers think that 100% of slashdot readers are mindless anti-MS zealots. Which leads me to believe that around 10% of slashdot readers are morons who have yet to figure out that they're reading slashdot.
And I most likely 'conveniently' overlooked money (bribes) from those companies, because they were 'conveniently' not the topic. It's all a giant conspiracy. John Katz is my gay lover.
If you want to look up contributions on any company or organization, you can also go here. But you could've also looked them up on the sites I originally linked. Apparently while I was conspiring to keep you from finding out about other companies and their contributions, I overlooked the fact that I was linking a search engine that can be used to find contributions of any company who's name you enter. Doh!
I think you're delusional, but polls say that 86% of people polled think 97% of polls are 83% bullshit, and that 65% of poll results are pulled out of thin air by people who have a 100% vested insterest.
Hey look everybody, AOL's legal team has a discussion forum. Bullying people who can't afford to defend themselves must be stressful, let's all head over there now and post supportive comments.
I think it's funny in a morbid kinda way...
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 1
I guess the plan is:
1. Recruit soldiers to defend America.
2. Invent weapons of mass destruction to defend America.
3. Invent vaccinations against effects of weapons of mass destruction, to be used by soldiers that were recruited to fight and defend America.
4. War breaks out.
5. Weapons of mass destruction deployed.
6. Vaccinated soldiers have no one left to defend.
I was on AOL......yes, AOL. At the time I was computer illiterate. I saw a banner ad for a game called 'Quake', and I only remember that I was floored by it's claims of being playable 'online, with dozens of other people from across the country', or something like that. As a kid I loved nintendo and all it's successors, but I would never have thought that I'd be able to play a game with so many people, let alone complete strangers from around the world, and at any time of the day. Finding quake was really like waking up on christmas morning for me, because I also have a pretty hyperactive imagination, and almost immediately I was dreaming up online games that wouldn't appear on shelves until years later. I wanted full-scale wars with hundreds of players, a star wars game with entire fleets of ships controlled real people, I could go on and on about what was going through my head when I downloaded the quake demo.
And needless to say, Quake did me a big favor by being unplayable on AOL. It forced me to switch to a local ISP, and I attribute most of what I've learned about computers to not being pampered and catered to by AOL.
Anyway, all I have left to say is that if there's one thing I wish people would've learned from Quake, it's how to make a demo. By the time I finished quake shareware, I felt like I'd played an entire game. Playing it online was completely addictive, and I really couldn't help but shell out the cash for the game. But today demos come with time limits and missing features. I guess developers are afraid to give away too much, maybe they think that if players can have hours of fun with the demo they'll see no reason to buy the game? It just doesn't hold up though -- if you've got something good, the more players see, the more they'll want. Only showing me 5% of a game makes me think there might be something to hide. Maybe it's repetitive. Maybe the level shown in the demo is the only good one. The situation pushes people to warez sites. I'm sure as hell not gonna buy a game that has a 1 level, non-multiplayer, time restricted demo when I'm lucky to find a place that'll let me return something even for store credit. Bah.
I don't even use linux, I'm somewhere between a 'techy' and a 'computer illiterate', and I'm more driven by politics than computers, so I doubt I have the patience to figure it out.
That said, you completely missed the point. I doubt you read what I linked, and you obviously don't understand the difference between a monopolized market and 'competitive capitalism'. Let me try it this way:
If you can't see the difference, let me expand on my point: the first group accounts for over 25% of ALL MEDIA in the country; including TV, radio, newspapers, movies, music, software, and the internet. They have no competition because they control the medium through which their competitors would normally be advertising. Once the practice in that story spreads, in places like Charlotte North Carolina (where I live), you won't see any commercials that advertise any product that competes with any product sold by AOL/TW -- because Time Warner provides the ONLY Cable TV service.
And why the hell are you so motivated to be against diversity of choice?? No one here is trying to change the laws from what they were; the Telecommunications Act did that by changing what the laws HAD BEEN FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. The people who ARE trying to change them, are doing it to put them back the way they were SUPPOSED to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Why no link to this "Konqueror" thing? Anyway, I always have active scripting and 'paste operations via script' disabled. One or the other (or both) keeps pop-ups from......uhhhhh, popping up. It very rarely causes any problems with websites, as far as I can see. I'm no expert on this stuff, though. If I ever get any problems, it takes about 5 seconds to enable it again. Or I can add the site to the trusted list and my paranoid security settings won't affect it.
Not to mention that a country which relies on solar power isn't likely to go to war over oil.
Centralization of information is not a good thing. Choosing convenience over one's own responsibility to better themself leads to Time Warner, News Corporation, or Microshit filtering the world down into 60 second news flashes and 'smart tags', that give me all the information that corporate profiteers see fit to give consumers; it makes life easier by removing any need to think for yourself.
On that note, I'm starting to understand why people don't like John Katz articles. There is a very simple point here, and I feel I pretty much covered it in my first paragraph. I will say that John is a journalist worthy of a TV news network. I can see the MSNBC news coming on -- flashy computer graphics accentuating the importance of the upcoming report that will surely detail breaking news of Earth's impending doom. The faces of well known media icons, complete with concerned looks on their faces, are super-imposed over the computer generated eyecandy as a parade of 3D letters come together to form the sparkling title of tonight's headline story: "The Poverty of Attention" Viewers at home watch intently as the images of importance that surround this story push the details of an earlier 'E! Entertainment News' interview with Tom Cruise out of their bloated pea-brains to make room for the storage of what will obviously be the most important broadcast of their life thusfar. The anchor doesn't let them down of course; even the most insignificant world event can be made to look like a milestone; it just takes a little pontification, and a barrage of buzz-phrases like "technologically-driven ADD" (oooooo), and "Attention Economy" (aaaahhhh) directed at the audience. They'll be locked in place, eyes glued to the television; eating up every tidbit of non-information. And when it's over they'll be dumber because of it.
If you think that's bad, consider the camera on top of Independence Hall, the building where the Declaration of Independence was signed.
(Previously submitted and rejected, BTW)
At this rate there's no need to worry about a "Nike solar system" or a "Microsoft galaxy". Just let'em all launch themselves into deep space on rockets fueled by egotism.
"I'm rich! I can do anyth---*crash*"
That's a gutsy statement from a slashdot reader, that probably realizes that corporations can lobby for laws like the DMCA, and then prosecute people, and prompt raids to confiscate and arrest people who have DVD's that are region-coded for another country. Then there's the poison water and dead ecosystems from oil spills, the Nike sweatshops, the Gap sweatshops, the genetically altered food that isn't labelled because genetics isn't an exact science and corporations afraid that if people knew what was genetically 'enhanced' their profits would suffer. Did I mention that the corporations that make genetically altered foods are in this business because their previous business of making chemical weapons dried up? Then there's corporate welfare. Examples of this include billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's successful effort to build a $300 million dollar stadium for his billionaire Seattle Seahawks, and have taxpayers foot the bill. Corporate Welfare costs the country at least $150 billion a year, and it goes to companies like GM, IBM, AT&T, GE, and Motorola, to name a few. Drug companies and HMO's lobby on a daily basis to increase profit at the expense of human lives. They profit fine in Canada, despite being required to actually make life saving medicine affordable. You might've heard about elderly people taking buses there to get pills. Tobacco companies planned advertising campaigns to specifically target 11-18 year olds, and when the research on the results came out, when the lawsuits started flying, they bought off congress to bring the backlash to an end.
To say that any of this is the product of a free country and a government not empowered to take away rights is naive. The founders never meant for corporations to have rights. WHY SHOULD THEY? Why should an entity comprised of people who ALL have rights that are absolute have rights of it's own!? It's NOT EVEN A PERSON. And in fact the founders understood that business HAD to be regulated in order to preserve democracy for everyone, from a farmer to a CEO. But greed won out, and now we get all our news and information from corporate elitists. And people have a distorted view of democracy; believing that profiteers somehow have their best interests in mind, 'surely they're not driven by PROFIT and profit alone! Damn that evil government for picking on a poor multinational corporation!' And with attitudes like that none of it will change until corporations ARE the government.
Think of it this way; we all hate an oppressive government. This is America. Echelon, Carnivore, they both deserve to be brought to an end. The thing is, if you have a beef with the government in a democracy, you can run for office and change the government. At least you used to be able to. But ask any politician of any party what it takes to win an election, and they will tell you that these days, the guy with the most money wins. And where does that money come from? Corporations.
Do you even bother to have a bank account, or do you consider THAT opting in? Oh, I forgot, you can go to the 'mom and pop' banks. Yeah, I sure know a lot of those. I do know a few that are lesser known names, and guess what, they're owned by the more well-known names.
Ever bought clothes? Here's a few places that would love to have your financial information, and I'm betting that they're dresses don't come with a fine print disclaimer. That is the most naive quote in this thread. Plenty of them do, and you only need to read the story itself to know that they don't need your permission at all, and didn't need to even notify you until July 1st, AFTER they have your information.
Even someone as dim-witted as you can understand that no matter how many times a person opts out, there will be profiles of information from companies that don't respect an opt-out request, and information only stops piling up after an opt-out notice. Therefore the bottom line is that you still consider the 4th amendment to be negotiable, and I think you're completely aware of how you've skewed libertarian stance to oppose a federal government and support a corporate one. I'll say it one more time; YOU are a PLUTOCRAT.
Seeing that you're a libertarian, let's compare the 4th amendment to the 2nd amendment in order to get the point across. You defend a practice that infringes on peoples' 4th amendment rights because, in true libertarian form, people have an (obscure) ability to preserve their rights by opting out; which results in most (not all) of their privacy being returned to them. Of course, the bottom line is that you support it because you support plutocracy.
So anyway, what would you say if the Government were allowed to take into it's possession, every firearm owned by any US Citizen? That's a rhetorical question of course, because I know that multiple blood vessels in your head would explode simultaneously. But if that situation were to arise: Well, hey, don't fret! All people have to do is send a notice to the FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOD, NSA, and ATF, opting out of having their right to bear arms taken away. Then, most of your guns would be returned, but maybe a few would have clips loaded with paint-balls.
So the core issue here is that you, as a libertarian, are saying that some rights deserve to be defended and some do not.
You are correct, sir. Now it's time to bottle up your anger, and release it in the ear of your Senators and Representatives. Also your bank, and anyone else who can't get it through their head.
There's the thing called the 4th amendment.........enforced by the laws of some 'democracy' thing-a-majig, which is taken for granted by people who call restrictions on greed 'communism', but support a system where consumers are forced to have decisions made for them, instead of being allowed to opt-in at their discretion.
That should say "contributions are protected as free speech," and it would if I used the preview button like I'm supposed to.
What were you reading? I was being sarcastic. And the 'flaw' you think you pointed out is the equivalent of asking me to prove your conspiracy theory. You thinking that other huge corporations have some agenda that would lead them to paying off politicians in order to trigger an antitrust lawsuit against a huge corporation that already deserves an antitrust lawsuit, does not equal a flaw in my arguement. In fact, it's absurd. And you obviously know how to read, so one would think that you had seen the link in my reply that shows how at least one of your examples (AOL), gave less than Microsoft. The others were a waste of time to link, since they would only appear on a very long list, because they didn't give enough to make that 'top 10 donors' page. And that fact is still irrelevant since they could've given twice what Microsoft did, and there would still be no logical reasoning that would lead someone to believe that the message behind the donations was "sue Microsoft for a crime they're already under investigation for."
Are you saying that Democrats are almost as greedy and corrupted as Republicans? My god, what a revelation.
"Oh, and if you read your links, they gave a vast majority of it to the parties in general, not to individuals ($5k limit, it makes it hard to buy people)."
I would say that $5k is plenty, but that's irrelevant since the limit means nothing. And if the limit could work despite non-federal accounts and pseudo-independent PACs, the contributions would still be limitless because, thanks to those loveable lobbyists, contributions are .
"So, if they They bought whatever / whomever they needed, why did this not happen years earlier, ie: before the first verdict?"
Check the original links, which I'm sure you poured over, given your snide response; Microsoft has only been a corrupting force on Capitol Hill for a little less than 2 years.
I didn't appreciate the judge botching this up either, but obviously you have it all figured out. And you're not the only one who shares that opinion of slashdot. Hell, I would say at least 10% of slashdot readers think that 100% of slashdot readers are mindless anti-MS zealots. Which leads me to believe that around 10% of slashdot readers are morons who have yet to figure out that they're reading slashdot.
Yes, I do.
And I most likely 'conveniently' overlooked money (bribes) from those companies, because they were 'conveniently' not the topic. It's all a giant conspiracy. John Katz is my gay lover.
If you want to look up contributions on any company or organization, you can also go here. But you could've also looked them up on the sites I originally linked. Apparently while I was conspiring to keep you from finding out about other companies and their contributions, I overlooked the fact that I was linking a search engine that can be used to find contributions of any company who's name you enter. Doh!
I think you're delusional, but polls say that 86% of people polled think 97% of polls are 83% bullshit, and that 65% of poll results are pulled out of thin air by people who have a 100% vested insterest.
Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C.
"The roles of giant, transnational corporations and government have slowly reversed,"
"Government is now more an instrument of such corporations than the corporations are instruments of government." - Dee Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA International
Hey look everybody, AOL's legal team has a discussion forum. Bullying people who can't afford to defend themselves must be stressful, let's all head over there now and post supportive comments.
I guess the plan is: 1. Recruit soldiers to defend America. 2. Invent weapons of mass destruction to defend America. 3. Invent vaccinations against effects of weapons of mass destruction, to be used by soldiers that were recruited to fight and defend America. 4. War breaks out. 5. Weapons of mass destruction deployed. 6. Vaccinated soldiers have no one left to defend.
I meant to add that what I would really love is to be able to see the original ad that caught my eye.
I was on AOL......yes, AOL. At the time I was computer illiterate. I saw a banner ad for a game called 'Quake', and I only remember that I was floored by it's claims of being playable 'online, with dozens of other people from across the country', or something like that. As a kid I loved nintendo and all it's successors, but I would never have thought that I'd be able to play a game with so many people, let alone complete strangers from around the world, and at any time of the day. Finding quake was really like waking up on christmas morning for me, because I also have a pretty hyperactive imagination, and almost immediately I was dreaming up online games that wouldn't appear on shelves until years later. I wanted full-scale wars with hundreds of players, a star wars game with entire fleets of ships controlled real people, I could go on and on about what was going through my head when I downloaded the quake demo.
And needless to say, Quake did me a big favor by being unplayable on AOL. It forced me to switch to a local ISP, and I attribute most of what I've learned about computers to not being pampered and catered to by AOL.
Anyway, all I have left to say is that if there's one thing I wish people would've learned from Quake, it's how to make a demo. By the time I finished quake shareware, I felt like I'd played an entire game. Playing it online was completely addictive, and I really couldn't help but shell out the cash for the game. But today demos come with time limits and missing features. I guess developers are afraid to give away too much, maybe they think that if players can have hours of fun with the demo they'll see no reason to buy the game? It just doesn't hold up though -- if you've got something good, the more players see, the more they'll want. Only showing me 5% of a game makes me think there might be something to hide. Maybe it's repetitive. Maybe the level shown in the demo is the only good one. The situation pushes people to warez sites. I'm sure as hell not gonna buy a game that has a 1 level, non-multiplayer, time restricted demo when I'm lucky to find a place that'll let me return something even for store credit. Bah.
Very interesting.
FYI, the term that encompasses events these phenomenon, is corporate welfare. From the energy crisis, to patenting pubicly funded research, and (in my hometown) charging taxpayers the money to build an arena they don't want. If you want to know more, I suggest you read "Cutting Corporate Welfare".
Because AOL and Time Warner are one and the same.
I don't even use linux, I'm somewhere between a 'techy' and a 'computer illiterate', and I'm more driven by politics than computers, so I doubt I have the patience to figure it out.
That said, you completely missed the point. I doubt you read what I linked, and you obviously don't understand the difference between a monopolized market and 'competitive capitalism'. Let me try it this way:
AOL/TW vs. Microsoft = Plutocratical
Speakeasy DSL vs. Carolina Broadband = Capitalistic
If you can't see the difference, let me expand on my point: the first group accounts for over 25% of ALL MEDIA in the country; including TV, radio, newspapers, movies, music, software, and the internet. They have no competition because they control the medium through which their competitors would normally be advertising. Once the practice in that story spreads, in places like Charlotte North Carolina (where I live), you won't see any commercials that advertise any product that competes with any product sold by AOL/TW -- because Time Warner provides the ONLY Cable TV service.
And why the hell are you so motivated to be against diversity of choice?? No one here is trying to change the laws from what they were; the Telecommunications Act did that by changing what the laws HAD BEEN FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. The people who ARE trying to change them, are doing it to put them back the way they were SUPPOSED to be.