One end of those pipes are connected to their equipment. They have the right to control that end. You would scream bloody murder if the cable company started using your computer as part of a distributed computing network without your permission, yet you want to use the cable companies equipment in ways they don't want to give permission for.
Yeah Right, and the Linux distros are making so much money that they aren't laying off anybody, and no one beleaved the recent rumors that a distro had folded.
An AC wrote: "What gives cable companies the right to offer selective IP connectivity? if there are only two broadbband providers in town an neither actually offer IP tone, both block similar sites and don't allow me to publish a web site on my own server how is that editorial control? I don't work for them. they arn't my fucking editor. where do they get off?"
Ownership of the servers that you are connecting to gives them the right of editorial control. Not working for the newspaper dosen't mean they can't exercise editorial control over the letter to the editor you send to be printed on their presses.
If you don't like it, then bypass them by hooking your webserver up directly to the internet.
Censorship is government action to forbid you from publishing or speaking on Any outlet. Editorial control is exercising control over a single area that you own. If the Newspaper dosen't print you letter to the editor that is Editorial control. If A TV Station dosen't grant you airtime on a community forum that is editorial control. If the cable company dosen't allow a certain use of the servers that they own that is exercising editorial control and is no different than the actions of the Newspaper or the TV station. Buying a Newspaper dosen't give you the right to exercise Editorial control over it's pages. Why would buying bandwidth give you editorial control over the cable companies servers?
The report's assertation that Cable companies are a threat to freedom of speech is absurd. It's the same tired old BS as "There is no freedom of the Press because everybody dosen't own a printing press", or freedom of speech because everybody dosen't own a TV or Radio station.
Freedom of speech or the press only means one thing, that the government can't stop you from speaking or publishing. It dosen't mean that you have a right to force others to provide you with a Printing Press, or a TV station, or a Broadband connection.
" While competition is a good thing, too much competition in a small market will kill some of the competitors."
It's just part of the cycle any new product goes through. A Century ago when Automobles were a new product there were dozens of auto companies for each one that survives today. The same for Airplanes.
Anytime a new product is developed that isn't closed to new entrants the early stage is for lots of people to jump into the new market. We saw this phase deliver 100s of Linux distros. This is followed by a shakeout phase where more people get out of a crowdwed market than new entries come in. Welcome to phase II.
Art Bell is an entertainer. He makes $$$$ by airing a show that some people find entertaining. Please try to rember that when listening to his show or any other shows like that. He's not intrested in an objective look at anything, he's intrested in the largest posible audiance so he can get the top $$$ for ads, and since you claim he's passed Lush Windbag, it seems he has hit on the right formula.
I Have worked on Campaigns, starting with handing out littiture for Nixon in 1968, and have been a campaign staff member for two successful congress bids, as well as a couple of failures and several stints as campaign chairman for canidates for the state lesigslature. I KNOW exactally how hard it is to unseat an incumbant and to raise the funds to do so.
Getting Getting $100 checks from indiviuals is nice, but has ZERO effect on postions. They are from people who either allready agree with your postions or who hate your opponant.
Most Campaigns don't give a flying fuck about tech issuses, one way or the other so they are open to having a postion developed for them and $$$$ talks. The MPAA can send an airheaded bimbo with a big name and big hooters to attend a $1,000 a plate dinner that will raise me half a mill in one night. Some nerd isn't going to bring in a bunch of people willing to shell out a grand to oogle his ass, so guess who has the advantage in catching the ear of the campaign when it's time to develop a postion paper on CBDTPA? Want influance? Make damn sure you can deliver half a million $$$$ in one night.
We need an organization that is concerned with fundraising and lobbying, one that can deliver every thing from $$$$$ to unpaid labor for campaigns. Most important of all one that can deliver the goods on election day, votes, blocks of votes. That means things like calling nerds on election day reminding them to vote, arranging rides to the polls and any other damn thing it takes.
I Said representing the intrests of the people, Not representing the intrests of all the people or the majority of the people.
Holywood donates lots of campaign $$$$$ Silicon Valley donates very little campaign $$$$$ Hollywood stars help raise campaign $$$$ at fundraisers. Silicon Valley Nerds are worthless at fundraisers. It costs a shitload of $$$$ to get elected and as long as Holywood outspends the valley their canidates stand the best chance of getting elected. Talk is cheap, campaigns aren't.
Sending Form letter faxes is a waste of time. They go in the trash unread and uncounted. Congress Critters get lots everyday from evry cause on Earth. They show little commitment, the only effort needed is clicking a button. If you want to really catch their attention drop by your Congress critters local office and tell the staff what you think in person. That gets more attention than thousands of faxed form letters.
Another biggie, If you don't vote, your Congress critter dosen't give a damn what you think.
"I hope that companies don't get the idea that this is an easy way to make a quick buck off software you don't want to deal with any more"
Actually I think we should encourage companies to "make a quick buck" off old software if it will result in more open sourced software.
I'm thinking of an open source charity that is recognized by the Tax collection agencies, one that companies could donate old software to in return for a nice fat tax deduction that will allow them to "make a quick buck" by lowering their tax bill.
" I was just wondering if I were to pitch in 50 dollars or so, would I be able to get a tax deduction on it?"
I Am a regional director for a small non-profit corparation. You can't leagaly take a donation unless they have incorparated as a non profit organization, and filed as such with the IRS. If you try to take the deduction it will go through unless all your deductions are high enough to require they be itemized (I don't have the figures off the top of my head) but will be disallowed if you are audited.
The faxes will be tossed in the trash by the staff who won't even bother telling the Congress critter about them. It's too easy to set up a site that says click here to send a message. Congress gets a shitload of form letter email and faxes like this every day, urging some cause or another, and their attitude If you aren't showing any more commitment than clicking a button on a web site, you probelly don't consider it important enough to base your vote on it. In most cases they are right.
If you drop by their local office in person, they notice that. If you hand write a letter they notice a little less. A Phone call, a little less. A Personal e-mail, less notice. A form letter, they don't care. This is the order that they measure your commitment by.
I keep seeing a mention of Disney used like it's an badge of evil. That's fine here on/. where most of the readers know what Disney has been up to, but it isn't going to help if you start talking to non geeks if you don't make damn sure that they know Why you have a problem with Disney.
Mention Disney to most people and the first thing that will pop in their heads is lovable cartoons. They associate the word "Disney" with wholesome family entertainment. Most people will consider being associated with Disney as being a good thing.
When you call Fritz the "Senator from Disney" some geeks might get the message, but a hell of more people will get this message "The Senator is for family entertainment" and is something that will help him far more than hurt him.
Put the right spin on it. Point out that Fritz is spending a hell of a lot of time representing the intrests of an out of state company that made big donations to him instead of representing the intrests of the people who elected him.
There are only 6 Senators who can claim they are representing the intrests of the people in their state when they back Media Companies, the ones from California, New York, and Tennessee. If you don't live in one of these 3 states you have a damn good reason to make representating out of state intrests into a campaign issuse.
Groups as far apart politically as the far right Bluenose "christians" and the Far left Tree huggers have one thing in common, Political Score Cards. A listing of Congress Critters and How they voted on key votes that the group is intrested in. It makes it simple to see if Congressman Blowhard has been voting the RIAA party line before you head to the polls on primary day or election day. Scorecards can also be used to raise donations for congress critters that "get it".
Scorecards can also list Who is donating to the Congress critters and the people running against them, and how much they given each of the people running. Federal law requires that donation lists be made public, so it's just a matter of gathering the data, putting it in one place, and making sure as many people as possible know where it is by posting it on sites like/.
"We need a single distribution. That's right. We need totally focused efforts."
Wrong We need distros that follow the LSB specs so that there is no such thing as a Red Hat RPM and a Suse RPM and a Caldera RPM, there is just a Linux Binary file that will install in Any distro that meets LSB x.x specs.
"We need a single desktop."
Wrong We need to shitcan X, and adopt a graphics program that includes a set of basic APIs that can be shared among several desktops that are interoperatable so that a binary that uses a GUI will work no matter which desktop you prefer.
"We're not at war. Congress never declared war. Congress MUST declare an act of war against a country in order to be in a state of war. Simply saying ad nauseum in speech rhetoric about the "war on terrorism" does not make the nation at war."
ad nauseum denials that the resoulation congress passed authorizing the war on terror dosen't mean that the US isn't in a state of war simply because the words declration of war were absent. There wasn't a nation of Al Qaeda to issuse a formal declration against, nor was it clear which nations are supporting Al Qaeda.
The Resoulation- JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Take careful note that this was passed under authority of the War Powers Resolution. The attacks on September 11 were also declared an act of War by the NATO alliance triggering sections of the mutal defense treaty against an attack on a member nations home territory.
The idea that a formal declration has to be passed by Congress is rather new. There was no resoulation passed containing the words "declration of war" during the Naval war with France, The war against the Barbry states, The various Indian wars, The US Civil War, The Philipine insurrection, The Korean War, or the Viet Nam War, rather there were resoulations authorizing the wars passed by Congress as per the Constitution.
The war on Terror is simply the latest in a series of wars that the USA has fought with the authorization of Congress. Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" but does require that a resoulation declaring war follow any specific format, and the resoulation regarding the present war follows the precedents set in authorizing past wars.
"Would the opposite hurt the employees? More so. Nobody would be able to make any long term financial planning, knowing he could be sacked any moment."
150 years ago the owner of a Plantation might have told you he couldn't do any long term planning if the slaves were freed because hired labor could leave at any moment. He had no right to force the slaves to keep working for him.
It's called freedom of association. You have the right to associate with anyone you choose if both of you mutaly agree to do so. Either party has the right to end the association anytime they wish. Employment is based on freedom of association.
In some Islamic nations a husband has the right to divorce his wife at any time he wishes simply by stating "I divorce thee" 3 times, but the wife has no right to divorce her husband. The so called employee rights are trying to turn employers into Islamic wives.
The Employees want to retain the right to disolve the association any time they wish (like the Islamic Husband) but want to make sure thier wife (the employer) can't "divorce" them.
Would you support a law that said an employee can't quit a job until the employer found a replacement? Sorry an association is not a free one based on rights unless both sides have the right to terminate it at will.
Is it just me, or are there a lot of posts lately that pop up early in a MS story claiming that we shouldn't say bad things about MS, posts that immeditally get modded up to 5 points?
An AC wrote: "Funny that the Gay Rights, No Nukes and Save the Whales slogans were also trying to get people to think about the issues."
Then they were failures. Few in the "No Nukes" movement were aware of anything but the latest scare stories and had close to zero knowledge about nuclear power. It was common to see "Save the Whales" bumper stickers on Toyota's driven by people who had no idea that Japan was one of only two nations practicing commerical Whaling. The Gay rights movement was the best informed of the three, largely because it was the smallest and many of it's members were gay, but there was still a considerable number of non gays who had no idea of what laws were discriminating against gays, or what laws were being proposed.
"And what the hell do you have agains Gay Wales that makes you want to nuke them?"
Pretty stupid political slogan isn't it? About 25 years ago there were 3 political slogans that were mindlessly chanted over and over. "Save the Whales", "Gay Rights!", and "No Nukes". The "Nuke the gay whales" movement started by combining the three trendy slogans into one stupid slogan as a protest against politics driven by slogans. It's the anti-slogan!
Ownerless land is open to whomever claims it. However is it the land that you want, or the value that the labor of others has added to that land?
Since you consider ownership to be unimportant, then I suggest that you go to a US National Forest, and live off the roots and berries that you gather. That will give you the lifestyle that men had at "the begining of time".
Who will teach you a skill? Well it's the begaining of time you will have to invent it, or seek out the man who is capable of creating that skill and give him a reason why he should teach it to you. That or ask Santa to bring you a skill.
"I want to build a house on this bit of land,
you also want to build a house on the same bit of land (after all i want it so it must be good!)"
Who Owns the land? If I own the land your desire to build on it are immaterial. If you own it my wants don't matter. If neither of us own the land, neither of our desires matter.
"I cannot live through subsistance because it conflicts with others who want land."
Wanting land isn't important, Owning the land that you wish to trespass on is another matter.
"So I don't have the right to be subsistant (i.e. I need a Job) and inturn land owners &co have a responsibility to employ me."
No You have a responsibility to learn a useful skill so that others will want to employ you.
It all boils down to this. You are still disapointed that there isn't a Santa Claus to give you everything you want with no effort on your part, so you are trying to create a Santa Claus government, and don't give a damn if the "elves" are enslaved, as long as every day is Christmas morning (for you).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't like the rules?, get a T1.
T1.
"What gives cable companies the right to offer selective IP connectivity? if there are only two broadbband providers in town an neither actually offer IP tone, both block similar sites and don't allow me to publish a web site on my own server how is that editorial control? I don't work for them. they arn't my fucking editor. where do they get off?"
Ownership of the servers that you are connecting to gives them the right of editorial control. Not working for the newspaper dosen't mean they can't exercise editorial control over the letter to the editor you send to be printed on their presses.
If you don't like it, then bypass them by hooking your webserver up directly to the internet.
The problem seems to be on your end.
Freedom of speech or the press only means one thing, that the government can't stop you from speaking or publishing. It dosen't mean that you have a right to force others to provide you with a Printing Press, or a TV station, or a Broadband connection.
It's just part of the cycle any new product goes through. A Century ago when Automobles were a new product there were dozens of auto companies for each one that survives today. The same for Airplanes.
Anytime a new product is developed that isn't closed to new entrants the early stage is for lots of people to jump into the new market. We saw this phase deliver 100s of Linux distros. This is followed by a shakeout phase where more people get out of a crowdwed market than new entries come in. Welcome to phase II.
Getting Getting $100 checks from indiviuals is nice, but has ZERO effect on postions. They are from people who either allready agree with your postions or who hate your opponant.
Most Campaigns don't give a flying fuck about tech issuses, one way or the other so they are open to having a postion developed for them and $$$$ talks. The MPAA can send an airheaded bimbo with a big name and big hooters to attend a $1,000 a plate dinner that will raise me half a mill in one night. Some nerd isn't going to bring in a bunch of people willing to shell out a grand to oogle his ass, so guess who has the advantage in catching the ear of the campaign when it's time to develop a postion paper on CBDTPA? Want influance? Make damn sure you can deliver half a million $$$$ in one night.
We need an organization that is concerned with fundraising and lobbying, one that can deliver every thing from $$$$$ to unpaid labor for campaigns. Most important of all one that can deliver the goods on election day, votes, blocks of votes. That means things like calling nerds on election day reminding them to vote, arranging rides to the polls and any other damn thing it takes.
Holywood donates lots of campaign $$$$$
Silicon Valley donates very little campaign $$$$$
Hollywood stars help raise campaign $$$$ at fundraisers.
Silicon Valley Nerds are worthless at fundraisers.
It costs a shitload of $$$$ to get elected and as long as Holywood outspends the valley their canidates stand the best chance of getting elected. Talk is cheap, campaigns aren't.
Sending Form letter faxes is a waste of time. They go in the trash unread and uncounted. Congress Critters get lots everyday from evry cause on Earth. They show little commitment, the only effort needed is clicking a button. If you want to really catch their attention drop by your Congress critters local office and tell the staff what you think in person. That gets more attention than thousands of faxed form letters.
Another biggie, If you don't vote, your Congress critter dosen't give a damn what you think.
Actually I think we should encourage companies to "make a quick buck" off old software if it will result in more open sourced software.
I'm thinking of an open source charity that is recognized by the Tax collection agencies, one that companies could donate old software to in return for a nice fat tax deduction that will allow them to "make a quick buck" by lowering their tax bill.
I Am a regional director for a small non-profit corparation. You can't leagaly take a donation unless they have incorparated as a non profit organization, and filed as such with the IRS. If you try to take the deduction it will go through unless all your deductions are high enough to require they be itemized (I don't have the figures off the top of my head) but will be disallowed if you are audited.
If you drop by their local office in person, they notice that. If you hand write a letter they notice a little less. A Phone call, a little less. A Personal e-mail, less notice. A form letter, they don't care. This is the order that they measure your commitment by.
Mention Disney to most people and the first thing that will pop in their heads is lovable cartoons. They associate the word "Disney" with wholesome family entertainment. Most people will consider being associated with Disney as being a good thing.
When you call Fritz the "Senator from Disney" some geeks might get the message, but a hell of more people will get this message "The Senator is for family entertainment" and is something that will help him far more than hurt him.
Put the right spin on it. Point out that Fritz is spending a hell of a lot of time representing the intrests of an out of state company that made big donations to him instead of representing the intrests of the people who elected him.
There are only 6 Senators who can claim they are representing the intrests of the people in their state when they back Media Companies, the ones from California, New York, and Tennessee. If you don't live in one of these 3 states you have a damn good reason to make representating out of state intrests into a campaign issuse.
Scorecards can also list Who is donating to the Congress critters and the people running against them, and how much they given each of the people running. Federal law requires that donation lists be made public, so it's just a matter of gathering the data, putting it in one place, and making sure as many people as possible know where it is by posting it on sites like /.
Wrong We need distros that follow the LSB specs so that there is no such thing as a Red Hat RPM and a Suse RPM and a Caldera RPM, there is just a Linux Binary file that will install in Any distro that meets LSB x.x specs.
"We need a single desktop."
Wrong We need to shitcan X, and adopt a graphics program that includes a set of basic APIs that can be shared among several desktops that are interoperatable so that a binary that uses a GUI will work no matter which desktop you prefer.
ad nauseum denials that the resoulation congress passed authorizing the war on terror dosen't mean that the US isn't in a state of war simply because the words declration of war were absent. There wasn't a nation of Al Qaeda to issuse a formal declration against, nor was it clear which nations are supporting Al Qaeda.
The Resoulation-
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Take careful note that this was passed under authority of the War Powers Resolution. The attacks on September 11 were also declared an act of War by the NATO alliance triggering sections of the mutal defense treaty against an attack on a member nations home territory.
The idea that a formal declration has to be passed by Congress is rather new. There was no resoulation passed containing the words "declration of war" during the Naval war with France, The war against the Barbry states, The various Indian wars, The US Civil War, The Philipine insurrection, The Korean War, or the Viet Nam War, rather there were resoulations authorizing the wars passed by Congress as per the Constitution.
The war on Terror is simply the latest in a series of wars that the USA has fought with the authorization of Congress. Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" but does require that a resoulation declaring war follow any specific format, and the resoulation regarding the present war follows the precedents set in authorizing past wars.
150 years ago the owner of a Plantation might have told you he couldn't do any long term planning if the slaves were freed because hired labor could leave at any moment. He had no right to force the slaves to keep working for him.
It's called freedom of association. You have the right to associate with anyone you choose if both of you mutaly agree to do so. Either party has the right to end the association anytime they wish. Employment is based on freedom of association.
In some Islamic nations a husband has the right to divorce his wife at any time he wishes simply by stating "I divorce thee" 3 times, but the wife has no right to divorce her husband. The so called employee rights are trying to turn employers into Islamic wives.
The Employees want to retain the right to disolve the association any time they wish (like the Islamic Husband) but want to make sure thier wife (the employer) can't "divorce" them.
Would you support a law that said an employee can't quit a job until the employer found a replacement? Sorry an association is not a free one based on rights unless both sides have the right to terminate it at will.
"Funny that the Gay Rights, No Nukes and Save the Whales slogans were also trying to get people to think about the issues."
Then they were failures. Few in the "No Nukes" movement were aware of anything but the latest scare stories and had close to zero knowledge about nuclear power. It was common to see "Save the Whales" bumper stickers on Toyota's driven by people who had no idea that Japan was one of only two nations practicing commerical Whaling. The Gay rights movement was the best informed of the three, largely because it was the smallest and many of it's members were gay, but there was still a considerable number of non gays who had no idea of what laws were discriminating against gays, or what laws were being proposed.
Pretty stupid political slogan isn't it? About 25 years ago there were 3 political slogans that were mindlessly chanted over and over. "Save the Whales", "Gay Rights!", and "No Nukes". The "Nuke the gay whales" movement started by combining the three trendy slogans into one stupid slogan as a protest against politics driven by slogans. It's the anti-slogan!
Since you consider ownership to be unimportant, then I suggest that you go to a US National Forest, and live off the roots and berries that you gather. That will give you the lifestyle that men had at "the begining of time".
Who will teach you a skill? Well it's the begaining of time you will have to invent it, or seek out the man who is capable of creating that skill and give him a reason why he should teach it to you. That or ask Santa to bring you a skill.
you also want to build a house on the same bit of land (after all i want it so it must be good!)"
Who Owns the land? If I own the land your desire to build on it are immaterial. If you own it my wants don't matter. If neither of us own the land, neither of our desires matter.
"I cannot live through subsistance because it conflicts with others who want land."
Wanting land isn't important, Owning the land that you wish to trespass on is another matter.
"So I don't have the right to be subsistant (i.e. I need a Job) and inturn land owners &co have a responsibility to employ me."
No You have a responsibility to learn a useful skill so that others will want to employ you.
It all boils down to this. You are still disapointed that there isn't a Santa Claus to give you everything you want with no effort on your part, so you are trying to create a Santa Claus government, and don't give a damn if the "elves" are enslaved, as long as every day is Christmas morning (for you).
All I have done is point out some reasons that you don't have that "right".