Tho that one at least goes to support publicly-available broadcasts. If the **AA were to get such a tax enacted (and I'm sure they'd love to collect an annual fee for every receiving and/or recording device) it would go directly into their own executives' pockets.
If you haven't read TFA at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673 , kindly do so. It makes some pungent observations, frex this one, which pretty much says it all:
"Copyright is being turned from a limited-term incentive designed to encourage creative artists to a broadly scoped transfer of wealth from the public to the private realm. As the industries that generate copyrighted materials seek control over not only their works but also the devices on which we watch, listen to, and remix them, copyright law is turning into technology regulation."
At least Powell shows a willingness to change his mind when new data comes to light, regardless of where the fault lies for his being previously misinformed. Better this than someone who can't adjust his policies to changing realities.
But that's exactly what we've been complaining about -- that the people we've been electing are almost entirely POLITICIANS, rather than REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. Maybe a quality civil servant is exactly what's needed, and one that's as visible as the V.P. might benefit the entire system.
You have to wonder what percent of the cost of consumer goods is due to patents. With newer medicines, it can be 99% of the cost (tho one could argue that at least there it usually has something to do with recouping research costs). What about other stuff?? How much money do patent trolls and squatters cost us in our everyday lives??
I think I'd rather have big business buying them up and exempting themselves (thus NOT incurring ongoing licensing costs that we consumers would eventually pay for) than have them in the hands of numerous small patent trolls all itching for a lawsuit.
Still, as someone above says, that this scheme is necessary at all speaks to how broken the system has become.
So for those of us who frequently drive thru brush and rocks, how likely is this thing to get snagged (thus possibly damaging the oil pan)?? ISTM that a better design for rough driving conditions would recess the whole thing into the drain plug, except for a near-flush button that one would turn with a short screwdriver or similar tool to open and close it.
I am paying $6.99/year with 1&1 (I also have hosting there) and after almost 5 years am still happy with their service (which includes Real Human Support). Not to say that something couldn't go wrong in the future, but so far so good.
Used to be if you were sufficiently "unmannerly" in a theatre, the mob of public opinion would soon change your ways (with a clue-by-four if need be). I find I prefer that social "kill switch", which is applied overtly and solely to the correct miscreant, over the technological solution, which can be randomly, mistakenly, and covertly applied to anyone.
The trouble with "optional" is that it tends to *become* mandatory over time.
I believe people should be allowed to be stupid so long as it doesn't directly impact anyone else. So if someone wants to sign up for their very own kill switch, let 'em. But it must be wholly opt-in, never "mandatory install, optional activation", because that optional activation WILL eventually become mandatory.
The difference is that the spectre of Communism generally aided us in preserving our freedoms (at least once we got past the McCarthy scare), by providing a well-defined example of what we DON'T want to be like.
The current nebulous "terrorism" bogeyman is not sufficiently defined to use as a bad example. Apparently this means we need to make our own bad example, so we know exactly what to look for should such a bogeyman actually appear.
From TFLink: ========= German Liberal Jorgo Chatzimarkakis acted as advisor for the Economic and Monetary committee. He told us that "bloggers cannot automatically be considered a threat, but imagine pressure groups, professional interests or any other groups using blogs to pass on their message. Blogs are powerful tools, they can represent an advance form of lobbyism, which in turn can be seen as a threat". He said "any blogger representing or expressing more than their personal view should be affected by this report." ======
Even in light of the other replies (stating that it's just an initiative report, not a proposal for law) this is bloody scary thinking. This means that while a political pamphlet might be okay, the *same* material presented as a blog could be a "threat" simply because it's from a group rather than an individual. WTF?!
I don't know about this 'Irish vote' of which you speak, but politicians overriding what the people want happens everywhere. We are seeing a surge of such behaviour here in California, at both state and local levels. I think the problem is that once an elected gov't gets just so entrenched, it becomes immune to everything outside of its own power. Electing a different official, even one who starts out honest, is at best a temporary fix and far too small to influence the whole. The powers that be will make sure anyone too disagreeable gets un-elected next time around.
As to TFA, I found this disturbing: ===== For example, the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or "sexual life" may not be used by a government "unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards." But the accord does not spell out what would be considered an appropriate safeguard, suggesting that each government may decide for itself whether it is complying with the rule. =====
And I'd like to know what the EU is getting in return -- I'd bet it's access to similar data on American citizens.
Asking my name and country of origin are reasonable enough when I enter your country. Anything else is none of your country's business.
I think you're right, but it's a lot like the RIAA -- they can't see past their current mode of business to the fact that a different business method, more in tune with current social and economic reality, would make them MORE money with LESS hassle.
If rec-drugs were legal, drug shops would spring up everywhere overnight, and distribution franchises would partner with existing pharamacies and liquor stores. And there is absolutely nothing stopping the current drug lords from getting in on that action......except that as things stand, they're in the habit of having ALL of a small market, rather than a little bit of a BIG market (even tho that little bit would probably be much larger than their current market). And the way to keep that business method a thriving monopoly is to back/fund the War On Drugs (much as the music industry backs/funds the RIAA).
I used whatever numbers someone else posted here to get the 0.000whatever% numbers; the numbers were so small that even being multiple orders of magnitude off still represents a very small risk. Even growing it to your figure of 0.36% of all deaths is an extremely small risk.
I saw some other stats whilst rooting around yesterday that gave annual figures of 30K gun-related deaths, BUT at least 40K lives SAVED by gun-toting citizens, and that's just what's reported. Which is a pretty good net gain of people still with us because of an armed defense. (I could contribute two such lives saved stats myself -- my neighbour's life, and my own. The first incident was reported; the second was not.)
So... let's change the perspective a bit. Rather than as a percentage of all deaths, how about as a percentage of all citizens, alive or dead?? Starting from the 300M+ Americans, what's any given person's chance of being targeted by a gun-toting perp? A: so small that we can't even get the math right.:)
Sir Walter Raleigh agreed with this point, suggesting that among the basic principles of the tyrant was "to unarm his people of weapons, money, and all means whereby they resist his power."
WND Exclusive AFRICAN POWDERKEG
Unarmed victims beaten, burned to death
Firearms Control Act forbids gun ownership, results in cold-blooded murder
Posted: June 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
An outbreak of xenophobic violence has resulted in the murders of 56 people and forced thousands more to take shelter in camps, community halls and churches across South Africa - the victims are foreigners who are strictly forbidden from owning guns.
Foreigners in Gauteng Province are suffering from gunshot and stab wounds, while many others have been raped, fatally beaten and burned alive.
Thomas Eastes, national chairman of Gun Owners of South Africa, said foreigners are unable to defend themselves from such atrocities because they are not allowed to be armed in South Africa. He believes the rise in crime and chaos is chiefly a result of the Firearms Control Act passed by the South African Parliament.
"Arming foreigners and as many citizens in South Africa will surely provide an equal opportunity of survival for all," Eastes said. "The weak, the marginalised, the oppressed and frail have a chance of survival if they are armed. I believe that firearm ownership places great responsibility on people but also enables foreigners and legal citizens not to live in fear."
Approximately 22,000 people are murdered annually in the country for being of another race, Eastes said. Some are killed because they own cars or $5 cell phones.
"Five-year-old babies are raped and sodomised as a perceived traditional remedy for curing AIDS," he said. "Women are objects of abuse, and our children are badly neglected every day. People are tortured and murdered to set examples and create fear. This is what communism thrives on."
Foreigners from Zimbabwe escape to South Africa to avoid state bloodshed, terror, persecution, kidnapping and starvation. More than 15,000 refugees have been displaced by state violence since the end of March. Zimbabwean Collen Makumbirofa of the Foundation of Reason and Justice said the situation is shocking as the foreigners flee President Robert Mugabe's atrocities.
"Millions of Zimbabweans are being starved into submission by Mugabe's government," he said. "Mugabe has lost support of the majority of Zimbabweans, therefore is clinging onto power by terrorism. Tens of thousands of Zimbabweans have been tortured by Mugabe's secret police, militias, soldiers and war veterans."
The South African government is refusing to offer Zimbabwe refugees adequate protection. It stopped processing asylum permits in Johannesburg and shut down Home Affairs Offices. Corrupt officials seize goods belonging to foreigners, demand sex from immigrant women and refuse to apprehend criminals who murder unarmed victims.
"Xenophobic South Africans see the police arresting and abusing foreigners on a daily basis therefore by doing violence they are also helping the African Nation Congress' efforts to eliminate foreigners," he said. "The police don't do anything or they release the criminal on a bribe. Police are also biased against foreigners who report crimes against Sou
Having lived next door to someone who respected my property and my life *solely because* I let it be known that I *am* armed and I *am* willing to defend myself.... you can guess which side I come down on.
I always liked this sign:
"This property defended by a double-barreled shotgun three nights per week. You guess which three."
You're a scary person, ya know that?? good insights, and frighteningly, I think you're right. When it only takes 5 people to nullify a basic Right, that makes them the most powerful people in this country.
Note to future Presidents: Choose your SCOTUS Justices with care. Your grandchildren will live with the consequences.
What CrimsonAvenger said. It's not that everyone WILL be armed -- it's that there's a *good chance* SOMEONE will be, *and* that this armed person is willing to defend others. That's a helluva good deterrent.
BTW there's a point that is often missed -- in a few nutjobs, being armed brings out aggression, but in MOST people, being armed brings out the instinct to protect others: The feeling that you CAN protect others gives you the balls to actually DO so, if needed. The net effect is that everyone is safer.
Someone else posted links to gun-related homicides in the U.S. The numbers worked out to an average of around 0.00011% of all deaths (yes, one ten-thousandth of one percent). That's not even close to statistically significant. The notion that we have a "murder epidemic" in this country is completely overblown, primarily by news media trolling for eyeballs to sell to their advertisers. (I got so sick of this BS that a couple years ago, I stopped watching TV news entirely. It was all OMG THE SKY IS FALLING *all* the damned time.)
Frex, last stats that I recall for Los Angeles, over several years averaged around 12 NON-GANG-RELATED homicides per year (and dropping), and that was ALL NON-GANG homicides, not just those involving a gun. That's for a city with over 3 million people officially, and probably another million illegals, and a daily influx of another two million people going to their daily jobs. Suddenly a mere 12 homicides, of which (statistically) approximately 8 were gun-related, sounds... trivial.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
Thank you, this was the piece I was looking for to post elsewhere, but offhand couldn't think where to look for it. This, IMO, makes it crystal clear what the 2nd Amendment was REALLY about.
Do you have any further historical references supporting this much-derided viewpoint?
BTW, as a mostly-Republican, more and more often I want to smack GW upside the head... but I still think the alternatives would have been overall worse, and appointment of "new values" Justices would indeed have been worse for the longterm future of this country.
Someone down below quoted part of it, so I'll reproduce that here:
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
The drug lords wouldn't like that... the War On Drugs being what keeps drug prices in the U.S. artificially high in the first place.
I contend that the real powers behind said War On Drugs are in fact the drug lords, thereby protecting their inflated pricing structure and revenue stream.
Legalize and tax all these recreational chemicals, and that whole power structure goes away... and U.S. pharmaceuticals could open up a whole new line of business, with SAFER recreational drugs for those so-inclined, perhaps even including research into new, safer, and better rec-drugs (research which kids now effectively do anyway, under extremely hazardous conditions).
I'd bet that (just as with the alcohol and tobacco industries) with legalized rec-drugs, there's more money to be made every year, and more tax dollars to collect thereby, than the entire WoD has made or spent during its entire sordid history. But that money would no longer be concentrated in a few hands, as it is now.
Slashdot Mirror
What, like the British television tax??
Tho that one at least goes to support publicly-available broadcasts. If the **AA were to get such a tax enacted (and I'm sure they'd love to collect an annual fee for every receiving and/or recording device) it would go directly into their own executives' pockets.
On reading the wishlist, my final reaction was, "Parties shall... go out of business."
If you haven't read TFA at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673 , kindly do so. It makes some pungent observations, frex this one, which pretty much says it all:
"Copyright is being turned from a limited-term incentive designed to encourage creative artists to a broadly scoped transfer of wealth from the public to the private realm. As the industries that generate copyrighted materials seek control over not only their works but also the devices on which we watch, listen to, and remix them, copyright law is turning into technology regulation."
"JFK managed NOT to start World War III."
From what I was told by people who were on the spot -- JFK had his finger on the trigger and was all gung-ho for WW3; he was stopped by cooler heads.
At least Powell shows a willingness to change his mind when new data comes to light, regardless of where the fault lies for his being previously misinformed. Better this than someone who can't adjust his policies to changing realities.
But that's exactly what we've been complaining about -- that the people we've been electing are almost entirely POLITICIANS, rather than REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. Maybe a quality civil servant is exactly what's needed, and one that's as visible as the V.P. might benefit the entire system.
You have to wonder what percent of the cost of consumer goods is due to patents. With newer medicines, it can be 99% of the cost (tho one could argue that at least there it usually has something to do with recouping research costs). What about other stuff?? How much money do patent trolls and squatters cost us in our everyday lives??
I think I'd rather have big business buying them up and exempting themselves (thus NOT incurring ongoing licensing costs that we consumers would eventually pay for) than have them in the hands of numerous small patent trolls all itching for a lawsuit.
Still, as someone above says, that this scheme is necessary at all speaks to how broken the system has become.
So for those of us who frequently drive thru brush and rocks, how likely is this thing to get snagged (thus possibly damaging the oil pan)?? ISTM that a better design for rough driving conditions would recess the whole thing into the drain plug, except for a near-flush button that one would turn with a short screwdriver or similar tool to open and close it.
Otherwise, it seems like a good idea.
I am paying $6.99/year with 1&1 (I also have hosting there) and after almost 5 years am still happy with their service (which includes Real Human Support). Not to say that something couldn't go wrong in the future, but so far so good.
Used to be if you were sufficiently "unmannerly" in a theatre, the mob of public opinion would soon change your ways (with a clue-by-four if need be). I find I prefer that social "kill switch", which is applied overtly and solely to the correct miscreant, over the technological solution, which can be randomly, mistakenly, and covertly applied to anyone.
I predicted a deadman switch the moment I heard about XP's shiny new activation. I too got laughed at. Now who's laughing??
The trouble with "optional" is that it tends to *become* mandatory over time.
I believe people should be allowed to be stupid so long as it doesn't directly impact anyone else. So if someone wants to sign up for their very own kill switch, let 'em. But it must be wholly opt-in, never "mandatory install, optional activation", because that optional activation WILL eventually become mandatory.
The difference is that the spectre of Communism generally aided us in preserving our freedoms (at least once we got past the McCarthy scare), by providing a well-defined example of what we DON'T want to be like.
The current nebulous "terrorism" bogeyman is not sufficiently defined to use as a bad example. Apparently this means we need to make our own bad example, so we know exactly what to look for should such a bogeyman actually appear.
From TFLink:
=========
German Liberal Jorgo Chatzimarkakis acted as advisor for the Economic and Monetary committee. He told us that "bloggers cannot automatically be considered a threat, but imagine pressure groups, professional interests or any other groups using blogs to pass on their message. Blogs are powerful tools, they can represent an advance form of lobbyism, which in turn can be seen as a threat". He said "any blogger representing or expressing more than their personal view should be affected by this report."
======
Even in light of the other replies (stating that it's just an initiative report, not a proposal for law) this is bloody scary thinking. This means that while a political pamphlet might be okay, the *same* material presented as a blog could be a "threat" simply because it's from a group rather than an individual. WTF?!
I don't know about this 'Irish vote' of which you speak, but politicians overriding what the people want happens everywhere. We are seeing a surge of such behaviour here in California, at both state and local levels. I think the problem is that once an elected gov't gets just so entrenched, it becomes immune to everything outside of its own power. Electing a different official, even one who starts out honest, is at best a temporary fix and far too small to influence the whole. The powers that be will make sure anyone too disagreeable gets un-elected next time around.
As to TFA, I found this disturbing:
=====
For example, the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or "sexual life" may not be used by a government "unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards." But the accord does not spell out what would be considered an appropriate safeguard, suggesting that each government may decide for itself whether it is complying with the rule.
=====
And I'd like to know what the EU is getting in return -- I'd bet it's access to similar data on American citizens.
Asking my name and country of origin are reasonable enough when I enter your country. Anything else is none of your country's business.
Same goes for MY country.
I think you're right, but it's a lot like the RIAA -- they can't see past their current mode of business to the fact that a different business method, more in tune with current social and economic reality, would make them MORE money with LESS hassle.
If rec-drugs were legal, drug shops would spring up everywhere overnight, and distribution franchises would partner with existing pharamacies and liquor stores. And there is absolutely nothing stopping the current drug lords from getting in on that action... ...except that as things stand, they're in the habit of having ALL of a small market, rather than a little bit of a BIG market (even tho that little bit would probably be much larger than their current market). And the way to keep that business method a thriving monopoly is to back/fund the War On Drugs (much as the music industry backs/funds the RIAA).
I used whatever numbers someone else posted here to get the 0.000whatever% numbers; the numbers were so small that even being multiple orders of magnitude off still represents a very small risk. Even growing it to your figure of 0.36% of all deaths is an extremely small risk.
I saw some other stats whilst rooting around yesterday that gave annual figures of 30K gun-related deaths, BUT at least 40K lives SAVED by gun-toting citizens, and that's just what's reported. Which is a pretty good net gain of people still with us because of an armed defense. (I could contribute two such lives saved stats myself -- my neighbour's life, and my own. The first incident was reported; the second was not.)
So... let's change the perspective a bit. Rather than as a percentage of all deaths, how about as a percentage of all citizens, alive or dead?? Starting from the 300M+ Americans, what's any given person's chance of being targeted by a gun-toting perp? A: so small that we can't even get the math right. :)
Can't improve on that at all, except to spit up the rest of the quote:
Armed men are citizens. Unarmed men are subjects.
An interesting article with a long historical perspective:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalciti.html
BTW, whilst looking for an origin for the quote, I found this disturbing article, very much related to today's topic: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66081
Having lived next door to someone who respected my property and my life *solely because* I let it be known that I *am* armed and I *am* willing to defend myself.... you can guess which side I come down on.
I always liked this sign:
"This property defended by a double-barreled shotgun three nights per week. You guess which three."
You're a scary person, ya know that?? good insights, and frighteningly, I think you're right. When it only takes 5 people to nullify a basic Right, that makes them the most powerful people in this country.
Note to future Presidents: Choose your SCOTUS Justices with care. Your grandchildren will live with the consequences.
What CrimsonAvenger said. It's not that everyone WILL be armed -- it's that there's a *good chance* SOMEONE will be, *and* that this armed person is willing to defend others. That's a helluva good deterrent.
BTW there's a point that is often missed -- in a few nutjobs, being armed brings out aggression, but in MOST people, being armed brings out the instinct to protect others: The feeling that you CAN protect others gives you the balls to actually DO so, if needed. The net effect is that everyone is safer.
Someone else posted links to gun-related homicides in the U.S. The numbers worked out to an average of around 0.00011% of all deaths (yes, one ten-thousandth of one percent). That's not even close to statistically significant. The notion that we have a "murder epidemic" in this country is completely overblown, primarily by news media trolling for eyeballs to sell to their advertisers. (I got so sick of this BS that a couple years ago, I stopped watching TV news entirely. It was all OMG THE SKY IS FALLING *all* the damned time.)
Frex, last stats that I recall for Los Angeles, over several years averaged around 12 NON-GANG-RELATED homicides per year (and dropping), and that was ALL NON-GANG homicides, not just those involving a gun. That's for a city with over 3 million people officially, and probably another million illegals, and a daily influx of another two million people going to their daily jobs. Suddenly a mere 12 homicides, of which (statistically) approximately 8 were gun-related, sounds... trivial.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
Thank you, this was the piece I was looking for to post elsewhere, but offhand couldn't think where to look for it. This, IMO, makes it crystal clear what the 2nd Amendment was REALLY about.
Do you have any further historical references supporting this much-derided viewpoint?
BTW, as a mostly-Republican, more and more often I want to smack GW upside the head... but I still think the alternatives would have been overall worse, and appointment of "new values" Justices would indeed have been worse for the longterm future of this country.
Someone down below quoted part of it, so I'll reproduce that here:
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
The drug lords wouldn't like that ... the War On Drugs being what keeps drug prices in the U.S. artificially high in the first place.
I contend that the real powers behind said War On Drugs are in fact the drug lords, thereby protecting their inflated pricing structure and revenue stream.
Legalize and tax all these recreational chemicals, and that whole power structure goes away... and U.S. pharmaceuticals could open up a whole new line of business, with SAFER recreational drugs for those so-inclined, perhaps even including research into new, safer, and better rec-drugs (research which kids now effectively do anyway, under extremely hazardous conditions).
I'd bet that (just as with the alcohol and tobacco industries) with legalized rec-drugs, there's more money to be made every year, and more tax dollars to collect thereby, than the entire WoD has made or spent during its entire sordid history. But that money would no longer be concentrated in a few hands, as it is now.
Sounds a lot like the RIAA, don't it!