There is, as far as I am aware, a special L-band payload for WAAS. It was contracted to be installed on several communications satellites that are otherwise used for C-band and other civilian bands.
Well, it's a low-energy point along an orbit. Since you can't treat Earth as a point mass and it's not perfectly round or uniformly dense, there probably is a "three body" problem in this case. So, isn't it the same phenomenon, just a degenerate case?
Light doesn't just illuminate something. It has pressure. If you illuminate a satellite from the proper angle with less than the energy required to blow it apart, for long enough, you can change its orbit.
Oops. These are not L1 and L2? I am having trouble imagining the physical mechanism for earth-relative libration point. There's no other mass and this is a phenomenon driven by the oblate shape of the earth?
I think you're trying to call it a dysfunctional representative democracy. Sure, obviously. Without the corporate influence it would be called "representative democracy" if the electorate's main participation was to elect their representatives. Here in California we have initiative and referendum, which is a non-representative voting system and also leaves much to be desired.
One science fictional society in which people vote on everything, all of the time, is called a "demarchy".
that the polarisation of news reporting is indeed responsible for the polarisation of the political system. It could just as well be an effect, or a corollary, rather than a cause.
Garbage-in, garbage-out is accepted as a truism these days due to its obvious applicability in computer science. I could sit down and scientifically prove this case with some significant effort, but it would probably only serve to remove the last prop of someone who was deliberately acting dumb. Thus, I refuse to be baited.
Furthermore, who is to decide what 'fair' news reporting is?
Obviously, a set of persons with widely divergent viewpoints. Who, indeed, is to decide on guilt in the court room, when life or death is at stake? We do manage as a society to select a jury.
So you think that CNN or NPR are worse than a deliberate liar because you know the liar is lying. But remember the woman who asked Obama to meet with Stephen Colbert? She really didn't get the joke.
If the government can claim that any independent operator must provide a government favorable viewpoint
You're distorting that quite a bit. Given a pro-government viewpoint, the obligation would be to provide an anti-government one.
Fascist economics is the wrong phrase here - it's a form of government control of the means of production for the sake (they say) of efficiency. I think you really mean fascist political doctrine, but that's wrong here too: Fascism views pluralism as dysfunctional and attempts to justify a single party state as representative of the nation in its entirety. The fairness doctrine requires pluralism, and thus is opposite of that element of fascist political doctrine.
I'm still having trouble accepting it as lassiez faire. You aren't just barring the network operators. You're barring the content providers from creating barriers to entry through the network providers. And thus to some extent the content providers are regulated.
You can help the people learn by educating them better. I have taught college in Norway from time to time. I get to see how various Europeans and Asians come equipped. Lots of the Europeans have very good primary education compared to ours. The Chinese don't, for the most part. Their engineering education is subperb, but their civics education seems to have been programming them to be faceless workers to an even greater extent than people in the U.S.
,p>Sure, it can be abused. But it seems to me that BBC and PBS are pretty good investments in terms of the programming they make which we just don't get elsewhere. I like NASA Direct, too, and that's as close to a government PR channel as we have.
On the other hand I'm sure the North Korean broadcasting system is a problem.
I don't care about democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
I prefer liberty.
Liberty is two wolves getting together to pick off the sheep one by one, because the sheep are so conscious of their own liberty that none of them will make common cause with the others.
In a true lassiez faire system of political discourse, the big content producing companies would be able to shove the smaller ones off of the network entirely without facing any legal consequence. They would probably achieve this by owning the network. The goal of network neutrality is that the large content companies not have that power.
Lassiez faire in economics means free from state intervention. Whereas an absence of intervention by network carriers is closer to the paradigm of a common carrier rather than a contract carrier. Although the "carriers" originally transported objects (including the mail and political handbills - so they were data networks of a sort) the terms are more frequently applied to telecoms today.
I wasn't really making a car analogy to net neutrality, I was commenting that other tremendous allocations of public land and money acted to benefit a specific party more than others, and did not have provisions that created fairness over the long term.
This is something that can be improved for all public allocation, not just the net.
But they have to control our country, they're too big to fail!:-)
Fine having a nonlinear tax, then. The most rich would pay more with a straight nonlinear tax than they do with a tax code which embodies 1000 exceptions. They have the money to game those 1000 exceptions, while the rest of us don't.
We've become a small, cowardly people with no heart
Yes. Here in Berkeley, it's really sad to look at the city behind the free speech movement and how, during two wars, the biggest protest it's managed to mount was to save six trees. And that was driven by a group of rich homeowners in Strawberry Canyon who manipulated a handful of naivé protesters for their own purposes.
If the same market was there for liberal talk radio that's there for conservative talk radio don't you think it would exist already?
Using the market to determine the availability of political programming builds hysteresis into the system, and perhaps oscillation too. The more you sell a viewpoint, the more demand there will be for it, until all those who can be converted are converted by the overwhelming statement of that viewpoint over its opposition. Then perhaps at some point they become disenchanted enough with the status quo that they oscillate to the other pole. And this continues.
Fox has a very big government subsidy in that they don't pay what their per-city allocations of 6-Megahertz channels at up to half a million watts of effective radiated power are worth.
The UK at least charges something (although to the receiver) for that channel and uses it to fund one program source that actively tries to be fair in its reporting.
Why are the poor in poverty? Most of the time they made bad decisions
Yeah, like being born with too much melanin in their skin. Terrible decision.
A large number of the poor people around where I live are from families that were enticed by the U.S. government to move off of the farm to the city so that they could build ships during World War II. Then when the war construction effort ended, their jobs were taken away (along with those of the women) and if anyone got a job, it was a returning GI.
They didn't make a bad decision so much as they were cheated by their own nation.
This is sort of like saying that since some country doesn't really have democracy, we should drop the pretense of democracy and be a straight dictatorship.
Dictatorship of the rich is exactly what a plutocracy is.
I'm a bit confused about your use of pole plant, all Google comes up with is references to skiing...
The poles, trenches and other means of passing a wire from place to place, and the system of wiring built upon them. Although it's generally the case that one "utility" predominantly owns the poles and trenches - even though they are on public land - and may lease them to the others, the wiring and/or optical fiber and its infrastructure are a separate property for power, telephone, cable, etc.
However, my basic stance is that if you use public funds, you are accountable to the public.
Go tell Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins, and Crocker, and every such business since. Yes, it should have been the law that the railroad right-of-way remained the public property, and they didn't get incredibly large grants of land and mining rights as well. And so on for pole plants, etc. Great thing to achieve but you have to start working on the politics now, because today it isn't the case.
Regarding GM and the public highway, consider that it has been a much larger give-away than the train folks got, and it didn't benefit the trains, and you and I lost the viable mass transit network of the time.
IMO you don't get more parties and a parliamentary system without a fair media voice.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, as far as I am aware, a special L-band payload for WAAS. It was contracted to be installed on several communications satellites that are otherwise used for C-band and other civilian bands.
Well, it's a low-energy point along an orbit. Since you can't treat Earth as a point mass and it's not perfectly round or uniformly dense, there probably is a "three body" problem in this case. So, isn't it the same phenomenon, just a degenerate case?
Light doesn't just illuminate something. It has pressure. If you illuminate a satellite from the proper angle with less than the energy required to blow it apart, for long enough, you can change its orbit.
Oops. These are not L1 and L2? I am having trouble imagining the physical mechanism for earth-relative libration point. There's no other mass and this is a phenomenon driven by the oblate shape of the earth?
This user has a history of comment spam.
I think you're trying to call it a dysfunctional representative democracy. Sure, obviously. Without the corporate influence it would be called "representative democracy" if the electorate's main participation was to elect their representatives. Here in California we have initiative and referendum, which is a non-representative voting system and also leaves much to be desired.
One science fictional society in which people vote on everything, all of the time, is called a "demarchy".
Garbage-in, garbage-out is accepted as a truism these days due to its obvious applicability in computer science. I could sit down and scientifically prove this case with some significant effort, but it would probably only serve to remove the last prop of someone who was deliberately acting dumb. Thus, I refuse to be baited.
Obviously, a set of persons with widely divergent viewpoints. Who, indeed, is to decide on guilt in the court room, when life or death is at stake? We do manage as a society to select a jury.
So you think that CNN or NPR are worse than a deliberate liar because you know the liar is lying. But remember the woman who asked Obama to meet with Stephen Colbert? She really didn't get the joke.
You're distorting that quite a bit. Given a pro-government viewpoint, the obligation would be to provide an anti-government one.
Fascist economics is the wrong phrase here - it's a form of government control of the means of production for the sake (they say) of efficiency. I think you really mean fascist political doctrine, but that's wrong here too: Fascism views pluralism as dysfunctional and attempts to justify a single party state as representative of the nation in its entirety. The fairness doctrine requires pluralism, and thus is opposite of that element of fascist political doctrine.
Well, in this case one man's stringent is another man's laissez faire.
I'm still having trouble accepting it as lassiez faire. You aren't just barring the network operators. You're barring the content providers from creating barriers to entry through the network providers. And thus to some extent the content providers are regulated.
You can help the people learn by educating them better. I have taught college in Norway from time to time. I get to see how various Europeans and Asians come equipped. Lots of the Europeans have very good primary education compared to ours. The Chinese don't, for the most part. Their engineering education is subperb, but their civics education seems to have been programming them to be faceless workers to an even greater extent than people in the U.S.
On the other hand I'm sure the North Korean broadcasting system is a problem.
Yep. Glenn Beck governs. Can you think of someone less qualified?
I am not talking about limiting political speech at all. I'm talking about how to make sure everybody gets a fair chance at the podium.
Liberty is two wolves getting together to pick off the sheep one by one, because the sheep are so conscious of their own liberty that none of them will make common cause with the others.
In a true lassiez faire system of political discourse, the big content producing companies would be able to shove the smaller ones off of the network entirely without facing any legal consequence. They would probably achieve this by owning the network. The goal of network neutrality is that the large content companies not have that power.
Lassiez faire in economics means free from state intervention. Whereas an absence of intervention by network carriers is closer to the paradigm of a common carrier rather than a contract carrier. Although the "carriers" originally transported objects (including the mail and political handbills - so they were data networks of a sort) the terms are more frequently applied to telecoms today.
This is something that can be improved for all public allocation, not just the net.
But they have to control our country, they're too big to fail! :-)
Fine having a nonlinear tax, then. The most rich would pay more with a straight nonlinear tax than they do with a tax code which embodies 1000 exceptions. They have the money to game those 1000 exceptions, while the rest of us don't.
It's worth looking at The Great American Streetcar Scandal just to see the photo.
There are a lot of independent sources on the web. They are all united in pointing the finger mainly at GM.
Challenge to U.S. auto manufacturers wasn't significant until the 1970's, and GM was always the big fish here.
Tone
Yes. Here in Berkeley, it's really sad to look at the city behind the free speech movement and how, during two wars, the biggest protest it's managed to mount was to save six trees. And that was driven by a group of rich homeowners in Strawberry Canyon who manipulated a handful of naivé protesters for their own purposes.
Obviously you don't enforce fairness by placing one viewpoint in charge of its enforcement.
Using the market to determine the availability of political programming builds hysteresis into the system, and perhaps oscillation too. The more you sell a viewpoint, the more demand there will be for it, until all those who can be converted are converted by the overwhelming statement of that viewpoint over its opposition. Then perhaps at some point they become disenchanted enough with the status quo that they oscillate to the other pole. And this continues.
It's not a terribly good way to govern.
The UK at least charges something (although to the receiver) for that channel and uses it to fund one program source that actively tries to be fair in its reporting.
Yeah, like being born with too much melanin in their skin. Terrible decision.
A large number of the poor people around where I live are from families that were enticed by the U.S. government to move off of the farm to the city so that they could build ships during World War II. Then when the war construction effort ended, their jobs were taken away (along with those of the women) and if anyone got a job, it was a returning GI.
They didn't make a bad decision so much as they were cheated by their own nation.
This is sort of like saying that since some country doesn't really have democracy, we should drop the pretense of democracy and be a straight dictatorship.
Dictatorship of the rich is exactly what a plutocracy is.
The poles, trenches and other means of passing a wire from place to place, and the system of wiring built upon them. Although it's generally the case that one "utility" predominantly owns the poles and trenches - even though they are on public land - and may lease them to the others, the wiring and/or optical fiber and its infrastructure are a separate property for power, telephone, cable, etc.
However, my basic stance is that if you use public funds, you are accountable to the public.
Go tell Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins, and Crocker, and every such business since. Yes, it should have been the law that the railroad right-of-way remained the public property, and they didn't get incredibly large grants of land and mining rights as well. And so on for pole plants, etc. Great thing to achieve but you have to start working on the politics now, because today it isn't the case.
Regarding GM and the public highway, consider that it has been a much larger give-away than the train folks got, and it didn't benefit the trains, and you and I lost the viable mass transit network of the time.
IMO you don't get more parties and a parliamentary system without a fair media voice.