Certainly not to the extent you believe. How much does the post office typically monitor its content? Not much at all. Basically, don't send porn to kids, don't send fraudulent advertisements, and don't send contraband. I would be ecstatic if the Internet were monitored exactly that much.
Does the USPS regulate content? Yes, they have some rather strict laws and decent enforcement mechanisms to prevent fraud and to keep porn out of the hands of minors. Just about anything else is open season.
Applied to the Internet, that would be just about fuckin' paradise.
Please, go Galt and leave us civilized people free of your Randian nonsense.
Excellent idea. Maybe that way there'll be less isochronous data and all this streaming nonsense will give way to downloads like we had in the old days.
Your average Blu-Ray DVD player doesn't have a high end multi-core CPU in it to aid in decryption
Says who?
For a million-unit product, it becomes quite economical to design and fab single-purpose accelerators that can decrypt megabytes per second of 1024-bit RSA. It's even more economical for a semiconductor company like Zoran or ST or Toshiba to integrate such an accelerator core into one of their ARM systems-on-chip and sell millions per month as a stock item, complete with development support. After all, they've been doing the same with MPEG-2 video decoders for years.
whereas legal marijuana doesn't directly effect any large legitimate financial group negatively.
du Pont's interest in eliminating the competition for their synthetic fibers was a significant force driving the popular campaign for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, similar to how the TEA Party's "drill here, drill now" position suspiciously coincides with the fossil energy interests of the Party's backers, the Koch brothers. Today we have several vendors of at most mildly stigmatized and gently regulated medicinal and recreational substances fighting for their own continued relevance against cannabis, never mind the various enforcement agencies who consider marijuana busts one of the easiest, most exciting and (for the agency) most lucrative parts of their jobs. So there certainly are billions of dollars to which "legitimate" interests believe they're entitled that might be shifted to other, smaller business interests were cannabis legalized.
If there is a change coming, it's only because other scapegoats are shinier right now.
You are apparently also of the generation that prefers ignorant mob rule and lazy scapegoating to spending even modest effort on understanding copyright law.
Hint: Start by finding the part of copyright law that criminalizes the receipt of information. Then find the section of law that allows an individual or corporation to enforce a contract against someone not a party to it.
Sadly, the MOTU have decided that the general welfare is less important than the specific welfare of the rich. So instead of something like Japan circa 1945, expect something more like Italy circa 1935 (effectively, the US Council of Corporations -- er, Chamber of Commerce -- already runs the place), or if we're really unlucky, Brazil circa 1985.
You don't get choice -- the opiate of the market libertarians -- but you do get decent service that stays out of your way in return for (usually) a fair price.
No one wants the government to force them to spend money on innovation.
Especially not me. Most so-called innovation detracts from the quality or quantity of a product or service. Who else here remembers real half gallons of ice cream?
Oh they won't choose to stop blocking the entry of new players and competition without being forced to stop. However, most would prefer to be a regulated monopoly than wound up.
Depends on the office, the state and the time of day. In Michigan it is still possible to find a Secretary of State office where you can walk in with no appointmet and walk out with a license plate and tabs within 15 minutes. Isn't that right, Taco?
A hundred years ago, Pinkerton and Brinks did much of the dirty work to "ensur[e] domestic tranquility" for the corporate class. Government clearly does not have a monopoly on force.
If they refuse or are unable to comply with your whims, do you simply revoke their license to operate?
Absolutely. Nobody has a right to drop their cable on the PUBLIC commons unless it serves the PUBLIC interest, and the ownership class is not a sufficient portion of the public to qualify. Corporations have no natural rights. Fines may ultimately be paid by the consumer, taxes may ultimately be paid by the consumer, but getting run out of town will generally affect those directing the business unsatisfactorily.
Unless you believe resources are infinite, any of these regulations must necessarily reduce the quality of service for a given price, or increase the price to consumers.
You know, I'd mention how when cable TV WAS a regulated PUBLIC utility (I know how you hate that word so I'm going to say it as much as possible), service was better, the public had more say in operations, and rates were FAR more reasonable. But I suspect you're ideologically deaf to such things, so... *plonk*
You can qualify it however you want, but there is nothing noble about forcibly taking from those who have what you want, simply because they're not part of your favored group.
When said outside group has created a vacuum for funneling the fruits of my labor upward and enlisted the guns of state to coerce my participation in their micromanagement, the question of justification becomes a bit greyer. You'll understand when you get older.
and the questionnaire supplying that number is a private one that you typically answer early in the life of your account. Nobody sees that number. None of this means that adherents of the Apple Lifestyle (tm) are not maladaptive in other ways that lead to them getting laid more.
Do I really need to say that I had sexual relations with well over a dozen women between the ages of 16 to 30? It's probably not in my best interest.
It chases off the people who can't tell Disney from real life. A positive effect, IMHO.
Basically, my argument is that you can get what you need out of fewer people, and thus this whole Iphone users getting more sex thing is overrated.
I don't disagree with either part of your statement, even though I don't agree that one follows from the other. However, monogamy is not necessarily equally or more satisfying than having sex with people with whom you share a lesser bond. I'm all for keeping a small circle of play partners and one or more close emotional/life partners, as long as everyone knows about everyone up front.
Contrary to what is taught in US schools today, protection from disease comes from barriers and knowledge, not authorizations in triplicate from your church and the county clerk.
Big government at least has to pretend to play by their own rules, and can't as easily change them because they felt like it at the time, even though it becomes easier every day there are four committed fascists on the SCOTUS.
Slashdot Mirror
a Couch in every router. That would be happy.
Certainly not to the extent you believe. How much does the post office typically monitor its content? Not much at all. Basically, don't send porn to kids, don't send fraudulent advertisements, and don't send contraband. I would be ecstatic if the Internet were monitored exactly that much.
Blah, blah, blah...
Does the USPS regulate content? Yes, they have some rather strict laws and decent enforcement mechanisms to prevent fraud and to keep porn out of the hands of minors. Just about anything else is open season.
Applied to the Internet, that would be just about fuckin' paradise.
Please, go Galt and leave us civilized people free of your Randian nonsense.
Excellent idea. Maybe that way there'll be less isochronous data and all this streaming nonsense will give way to downloads like we had in the old days.
Your average Blu-Ray DVD player doesn't have a high end multi-core CPU in it to aid in decryption
Says who?
For a million-unit product, it becomes quite economical to design and fab single-purpose accelerators that can decrypt megabytes per second of 1024-bit RSA. It's even more economical for a semiconductor company like Zoran or ST or Toshiba to integrate such an accelerator core into one of their ARM systems-on-chip and sell millions per month as a stock item, complete with development support. After all, they've been doing the same with MPEG-2 video decoders for years.
It really doesn't take much at all to turn any person off the street into a jackbooted thug, if they have the slightest inclination for it.
whereas legal marijuana doesn't directly effect any large legitimate financial group negatively.
du Pont's interest in eliminating the competition for their synthetic fibers was a significant force driving the popular campaign for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, similar to how the TEA Party's "drill here, drill now" position suspiciously coincides with the fossil energy interests of the Party's backers, the Koch brothers. Today we have several vendors of at most mildly stigmatized and gently regulated medicinal and recreational substances fighting for their own continued relevance against cannabis, never mind the various enforcement agencies who consider marijuana busts one of the easiest, most exciting and (for the agency) most lucrative parts of their jobs. So there certainly are billions of dollars to which "legitimate" interests believe they're entitled that might be shifted to other, smaller business interests were cannabis legalized.
If there is a change coming, it's only because other scapegoats are shinier right now.
You are apparently also of the generation that prefers ignorant mob rule and lazy scapegoating to spending even modest effort on understanding copyright law.
Hint: Start by finding the part of copyright law that criminalizes the receipt of information. Then find the section of law that allows an individual or corporation to enforce a contract against someone not a party to it.
Sadly, the MOTU have decided that the general welfare is less important than the specific welfare of the rich. So instead of something like Japan circa 1945, expect something more like Italy circa 1935 (effectively, the US Council of Corporations -- er, Chamber of Commerce -- already runs the place), or if we're really unlucky, Brazil circa 1985.
Who are, by and large, only ever out in the streets for the bread-and-circuses.
Legalize it and raise your own trade sanctions!
You don't get choice -- the opiate of the market libertarians -- but you do get decent service that stays out of your way in return for (usually) a fair price.
No one wants the government to force them to spend money on innovation.
Especially not me. Most so-called innovation detracts from the quality or quantity of a product or service. Who else here remembers real half gallons of ice cream?
Oh they won't choose to stop blocking the entry of new players and competition without being forced to stop. However, most would prefer to be a regulated monopoly than wound up.
What choice?
Depends on the office, the state and the time of day. In Michigan it is still possible to find a Secretary of State office where you can walk in with no appointmet and walk out with a license plate and tabs within 15 minutes. Isn't that right, Taco?
A hundred years ago, Pinkerton and Brinks did much of the dirty work to "ensur[e] domestic tranquility" for the corporate class. Government clearly does not have a monopoly on force.
If they refuse or are unable to comply with your whims, do you simply revoke their license to operate?
Absolutely. Nobody has a right to drop their cable on the PUBLIC commons unless it serves the PUBLIC interest, and the ownership class is not a sufficient portion of the public to qualify. Corporations have no natural rights. Fines may ultimately be paid by the consumer, taxes may ultimately be paid by the consumer, but getting run out of town will generally affect those directing the business unsatisfactorily.
Unless you believe resources are infinite, any of these regulations must necessarily reduce the quality of service for a given price, or increase the price to consumers.
You know, I'd mention how when cable TV WAS a regulated PUBLIC utility (I know how you hate that word so I'm going to say it as much as possible), service was better, the public had more say in operations, and rates were FAR more reasonable. But I suspect you're ideologically deaf to such things, so... *plonk*
You can qualify it however you want, but there is nothing noble about forcibly taking from those who have what you want, simply because they're not part of your favored group.
When said outside group has created a vacuum for funneling the fruits of my labor upward and enlisted the guns of state to coerce my participation in their micromanagement, the question of justification becomes a bit greyer. You'll understand when you get older.
and the questionnaire supplying that number is a private one that you typically answer early in the life of your account. Nobody sees that number. None of this means that adherents of the Apple Lifestyle (tm) are not maladaptive in other ways that lead to them getting laid more.
Do I really need to say that I had sexual relations with well over a dozen women between the ages of 16 to 30? It's probably not in my best interest.
It chases off the people who can't tell Disney from real life. A positive effect, IMHO.
but in the 16 months I've owned one I've had five new play partners.
Basically, my argument is that you can get what you need out of fewer people, and thus this whole Iphone users getting more sex thing is overrated.
I don't disagree with either part of your statement, even though I don't agree that one follows from the other. However, monogamy is not necessarily equally or more satisfying than having sex with people with whom you share a lesser bond. I'm all for keeping a small circle of play partners and one or more close emotional/life partners, as long as everyone knows about everyone up front.
Contrary to what is taught in US schools today, protection from disease comes from barriers and knowledge, not authorizations in triplicate from your church and the county clerk.
It is possible to have sex without being married, and some cultures don't really care whether some organ of society has blessed your union or not.
Now recalculate.
Big government at least has to pretend to play by their own rules, and can't as easily change them because they felt like it at the time, even though it becomes easier every day there are four committed fascists on the SCOTUS.