Even if we opened them up, there's nothing to stop them from funding a new program or even a new agency in a black budget. Considering the current world climate, not many "elected representatives" are going to stand in the way of it either.
Then the whole free market system pretty much goes right down the drain. The only accountability will be to guberment regulations, and businesses can screw customers any which way they want because they know if they make an enticing product people will shell out the cash anyway. Use your brains before you go out buying things made by companies who sue your friends and peers for beating them at their own game. Feh. Fanboys.
I've said this before in response to MS-FUD: When the government/economy/national security of an entire country hinges on the well-being of one company, that company might be just a little too big for everyone's own good.
The full sentence was "From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money." Someone who remembered the wording better than I did put it in the comments after Hemos removed it.:/
That was an attempt to recreate the original march, I think, wasn't it? Maybe I'm wrong (I was 15 at the time of the one in 1995). Anyway, I remembered reports saying that they never came close to a million people in 95. Which was part of my point. Despite the growth in the minority population, attendance didn't even manage to reach that of the original, which I thought was an event back in the day's of Malcom X.
The other response was probably too confusing. The basics are this: Buckley v. Valeo upheld $1000 contribution limits (at the time, no one had any idea that we would be looking at millions in contributions down the road, if the supreme court had a problem with more than $1000...) saying that while contributions were a form of free speech, the need to combat corruption or even the appearance of corruption (which erodes peoples' belief and participation in a democratic government) is more important. And you can see by the passage of time that people have cared and participated less and less in their government over the years. The million man march, the massive protests against the vietnam war, these are things that don't happen anymore despite the fact that it is much easier and more feasible to reach a larger number of people and mobilize them into a political movement.
Buckley v. Valeo also found that restrictions on contributions are constitutional. The reform opposition in D.C. loved to frequently leave that part out of their press releases.
Ah. But do you want someone with such a willingness to give in to corruption in the office to begin with? Aren't they just an open door for less obvious forms of misbehavior?
I agree that, right now, term limits are a bad idea. But if, say, publicly funded elections became a reality and 3rd, 4th, or 5th party candidates were on equal ground with the two major parties, term limits might help to keep a rotation of new faces and ideas in power.
The press has always been responsible for it's own failure or success. You can't expect people to regulate it, or steer it in the right direction, when people can only possibly learn of it's misdeeds and mistakes through *gasp*, THE PRESS! The media dips into sensationalism because it allows itself to be driven by profit and whatever it's ratings are, they're NEVER enough. Not ALL people are going to care about what's on the news, it's as simple as that. You can't ruin the news trying to cater to idiots who don't care what's going on outside their small world, and yet, that's exactly what's happened. Sept. 11th should've been a wake up call for the media, as well. I don't know how people could stand for that kind of coverage. Anyone who's watched serious news like the BBC might agree. It was no less than 20 minutes after the planes hit, that NBC had created a 'music video' for the tragedy, with slides of fire, explosions, and people covered in ash flying across the screen as corny, dramatic music played in the background. Despite everything that was happening, it still made me want to turn off the television.
And I think a lot of people are sick and jaded by the nature of our news media, but it's hard to say if anyone will ever know how big this problem is because, again, they'd have to hear about it from the news media.
No one saw a problem with Time Warner owning the cable companies in places like my hometown of Charlotte, and now they have no competition, so they can pull this crap despite having already implemented bandwidth caps to supposedly avoid the need for it. Companies like Carolina Cable tried and tried to get their foot in the door, but when TW/AOL can just put off access to the pipes they control, those companies have a better chance of going bankrupt first (CC ran out of money a long time ago). Some free market this is. Uggghhhhh, fuck it all.
Re:You should hear what the robot has to say...
on
Hospital Robots
·
· Score: 2
I hope he can remind people how long it would take to evacuate the T-32's.
I would agree 100% if it weren't for the fact that Valve was introducing it. I still share your concerns, but I was part of the half-life community from the start, and I know more about Valve than any business I've ever been a customer to. Here's to hoping that they'll actively combat abuses while they're out licensing it to third parties.
I don't believe that's the case at all. Who on earth isn't aware of the fact that the United States has nuclear weapons? The only purpose I would think this would serve would be (if intentionally leaked) to make veiled threats for some asinine reason, or to inadvertently restart a world-wide military buildup. If I were Russian or Chinese, I sure wouldn't feel to good about this.
The internet doesn't even exist. 'The internet' as we know it is just a program with lots of computerized characters that act the part of 'netizens' for the purposes of interaction and amusement.
I like Apple as a company.....well, sorta. There's plenty of reasons to like them. The simple fact that Microsoft and Eisner aren't all buddy-buddy with the folks at Apple is a good start. But why does Apple insist on being part of this joke of an alliance that probably doesn't like their 'Rip, Mix, Burn' campaign anymore than Eisner does?
The fact of the matter is that what you got is just a format letter that gets sent to anyone who mentions things about copyright or the DMCA in their letter. It's not terribly different than the letter I got from Senator Edwards of NC when I wrote about the SSSCA, in that they both say a lot about nothing, and leave the Senator right in the middle where no constituent can be swayed into voting against him in the next election, based on a screw up like his opinions becoming known.
To play somewhat of a devil's advocate, I can tell you there was probably no deception intended; one of his assistants simply read your letter, and correctly reached into the stack of replies that went "Blah blah blah, copyright, blah blah blah (statement supporting both the consumer's and corporation's interests), blah blah blah, I have no bill on this issue at the present time."
Slashdot Mirror
Even if we opened them up, there's nothing to stop them from funding a new program or even a new agency in a black budget. Considering the current world climate, not many "elected representatives" are going to stand in the way of it either.
Then the whole free market system pretty much goes right down the drain. The only accountability will be to guberment regulations, and businesses can screw customers any which way they want because they know if they make an enticing product people will shell out the cash anyway. Use your brains before you go out buying things made by companies who sue your friends and peers for beating them at their own game. Feh. Fanboys.
I've said this before in response to MS-FUD: When the government/economy/national security of an entire country hinges on the well-being of one company, that company might be just a little too big for everyone's own good.
Wah! Waaaah! WAAAAHHH!
Wow cool, I'm someone sig :D
:/
The full sentence was "From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money." Someone who remembered the wording better than I did put it in the comments after Hemos removed it.
It may not be piracy, but it sure stole my heart.
aawwwwww...
That was an attempt to recreate the original march, I think, wasn't it? Maybe I'm wrong (I was 15 at the time of the one in 1995). Anyway, I remembered reports saying that they never came close to a million people in 95. Which was part of my point. Despite the growth in the minority population, attendance didn't even manage to reach that of the original, which I thought was an event back in the day's of Malcom X.
It's possible, I'm definitely not an expert on the process. I was just going by a schedule like the one I linked in my other response to this thread.
The other response was probably too confusing. The basics are this: Buckley v. Valeo upheld $1000 contribution limits (at the time, no one had any idea that we would be looking at millions in contributions down the road, if the supreme court had a problem with more than $1000...) saying that while contributions were a form of free speech, the need to combat corruption or even the appearance of corruption (which erodes peoples' belief and participation in a democratic government) is more important. And you can see by the passage of time that people have cared and participated less and less in their government over the years. The million man march, the massive protests against the vietnam war, these are things that don't happen anymore despite the fact that it is much easier and more feasible to reach a larger number of people and mobilize them into a political movement.
Buckley v. Valeo also found that restrictions on contributions are constitutional. The reform opposition in D.C. loved to frequently leave that part out of their press releases.
This might be useful.
And actually the congressional elections are this year. If people want the chance to oust Hollings, I'm sure it isn't far off.
Ah. But do you want someone with such a willingness to give in to corruption in the office to begin with? Aren't they just an open door for less obvious forms of misbehavior?
I agree that, right now, term limits are a bad idea. But if, say, publicly funded elections became a reality and 3rd, 4th, or 5th party candidates were on equal ground with the two major parties, term limits might help to keep a rotation of new faces and ideas in power.
I would tend to disagree.
The press has always been responsible for it's own failure or success. You can't expect people to regulate it, or steer it in the right direction, when people can only possibly learn of it's misdeeds and mistakes through *gasp*, THE PRESS! The media dips into sensationalism because it allows itself to be driven by profit and whatever it's ratings are, they're NEVER enough. Not ALL people are going to care about what's on the news, it's as simple as that. You can't ruin the news trying to cater to idiots who don't care what's going on outside their small world, and yet, that's exactly what's happened. Sept. 11th should've been a wake up call for the media, as well. I don't know how people could stand for that kind of coverage. Anyone who's watched serious news like the BBC might agree. It was no less than 20 minutes after the planes hit, that NBC had created a 'music video' for the tragedy, with slides of fire, explosions, and people covered in ash flying across the screen as corny, dramatic music played in the background. Despite everything that was happening, it still made me want to turn off the television.
And I think a lot of people are sick and jaded by the nature of our news media, but it's hard to say if anyone will ever know how big this problem is because, again, they'd have to hear about it from the news media.
No one saw a problem with Time Warner owning the cable companies in places like my hometown of Charlotte, and now they have no competition, so they can pull this crap despite having already implemented bandwidth caps to supposedly avoid the need for it. Companies like Carolina Cable tried and tried to get their foot in the door, but when TW/AOL can just put off access to the pipes they control, those companies have a better chance of going bankrupt first (CC ran out of money a long time ago). Some free market this is. Uggghhhhh, fuck it all.
I hope he can remind people how long it would take to evacuate the T-32's.
hiyoooo!
If you look at the picture of all those guys lined up beside eachother you could swear it was taken in the 1970's.
...by VAPORIZING us!! YEEAAARRGGHH!!!
I would agree 100% if it weren't for the fact that Valve was introducing it. I still share your concerns, but I was part of the half-life community from the start, and I know more about Valve than any business I've ever been a customer to. Here's to hoping that they'll actively combat abuses while they're out licensing it to third parties.
If you submit a freedom of information act request to the CIA, you can probably get back pages and pages of blacked out text.
I don't believe that's the case at all. Who on earth isn't aware of the fact that the United States has nuclear weapons? The only purpose I would think this would serve would be (if intentionally leaked) to make veiled threats for some asinine reason, or to inadvertently restart a world-wide military buildup. If I were Russian or Chinese, I sure wouldn't feel to good about this.
The internet doesn't even exist. 'The internet' as we know it is just a program with lots of computerized characters that act the part of 'netizens' for the purposes of interaction and amusement.
"But, my lord.......is that leeegal?"
"I shall make it legal."
I like Apple as a company.....well, sorta. There's plenty of reasons to like them. The simple fact that Microsoft and Eisner aren't all buddy-buddy with the folks at Apple is a good start. But why does Apple insist on being part of this joke of an alliance that probably doesn't like their 'Rip, Mix, Burn' campaign anymore than Eisner does?
The fact of the matter is that what you got is just a format letter that gets sent to anyone who mentions things about copyright or the DMCA in their letter. It's not terribly different than the letter I got from Senator Edwards of NC when I wrote about the SSSCA, in that they both say a lot about nothing, and leave the Senator right in the middle where no constituent can be swayed into voting against him in the next election, based on a screw up like his opinions becoming known.
To play somewhat of a devil's advocate, I can tell you there was probably no deception intended; one of his assistants simply read your letter, and correctly reached into the stack of replies that went "Blah blah blah, copyright, blah blah blah (statement supporting both the consumer's and corporation's interests), blah blah blah, I have no bill on this issue at the present time."