Oh no! Whatever will we do!? Who will do real science research now to further our great nation!? Afterall, nobody else does scientific research and innovation except for government funded labs!/sarcasm
"The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set."
That's one of many reasons why I support the proposal called "the fair tax" which would replace all existing payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax.
And when they say "fair", they mean "provide they greatest benefit to the rich".
Consumption taxes are about as regressive as you can get.
Nice try, how about proving your statement with a little bit of explanation instead of just hoping that it's true. Have you actually read about the Fair Tax? Do you actually study economics and the current digrace of a tax code that we have right now? Are you really against simplifying the taxes so that they are so simple and transparent that politicians could no longer play favorites with their soup du jour special interests? Come on man, foul play! Don't defend the sucky status quo.
This lawsuit is exactly what is needed to put Congress and the FCC in their place. They really think that they can regulate anything in their pompous way. Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does. Just like Congress does not own your house, or your car, or you, they should not be able to infringe on private property at their whim. Of course Google and Facebook don't like Verizon or any other ISP being able to discriminate traffic. So why doesn't Google and/or Facebook open their own ISP operation and compete with Verizon and prove to them that the better business model might be to not discriminate traffic? Please, government is not the answer! It very rarely is. Politicians do not represent us nor do they have god-like knowledge of the best way to do things.
I completely agree with you. What does the government even know about a complex issue? This seems like it will only begin to hamper the innovation that is capable on the Internet without being crushed by regulation. I think the politicians are just trying to do another power grab.
Though I agree that Mozilla has been good for the browser market, that does not mean that they can repeat their success else where. But assuming for argument that it could be a general software fight starter, why can't it do both? Does it have to choose to do one thing only? Maybe Mozilla can start another organization like it for office suites and direct how the organization looks so that it can essentially replicate itself.
Gee, a collective group that is trying to collude and look out for their best interests with protection from the government is the problem? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!/sarcasm
Ahh, don't you just love the unintended and naive consequences of government getting involved in things? Way to inflate the unnatural demand for wind energy! Never under-estimate how ignorant and power hungry (pun intended) politicians are.
Agreed. I have many, many complaints about this administration, but at least they're saving some amount of money by utilizing Drupal instead of some proprietary CMS system that might go out of business at any time.
Although I applaud this because at least the federal government didn't waste gobs of money on a proprietary system that might not be around tomorrow, I still can't help but yawn at this news. This has nothing to do with the President or probably even his CTO that he nominated. It was probably just some developer that the federal government has hired who recommended the use of Drupal and suggested open sourcing the modules that they developed.
You're view is really naive. Sure, the government upholds the basic rights of property rights. The majority of political groups believe that is a legitimate role for government. But the rest of the things that you listed, the government does not need to do and in fact does a pretty poor job doing. Now don't get me wrong that if Apple did such a move that it would be pretty shady, but they would own that property by law and should be able to do anything with it, including refusing the right of sale. What part of Apple owning it do you not understand? Just because the collective forcing their will through the government seems ok to you, doesn't make it moral or ethical.
Did I ever claim to know more about economics? I've studied quite a bit and I read about it every day in my spare time, but I didn't claim to know more than anyone else. I was simply crying foul that a government can make a value judgement for millions and billions of people about what is competitive and what is not. Technically, the only monopoly that exists is that which is granted by the government. The government is a monopoly and the only way to be completely rid of its monopoly is by force against it.
Tell me though has it doesn't have to do with property rights. If Apple pays for ARM, by all traditional property right laws, Apple owns ARM outright. It can decide to completely close down ARM and hoard the intellectual property (yes, property is in the title of what that is) and sell it to nobody. They have that right and that is part of what makes America great and unique. People and companies in general are ransacked less by the government than many other countries. Just ask the Chinese citizens how they like their communist government taking their property from them at will.
For all of their processors? I would find that fact hard to believe. Plus there's PIC, AVR, etc. The list goes on and on of viable competition that companies could use for the microprocessor needs besides ARM.
There are also many very excellent MIPS-based microprocessors out there used in all kinds of embedded devices. Also, Freescale makes excellent micros as well. There's a lot of competition out there.
Re:Buying ARM for a leg?
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Antitrust is a crock. Nobody except for whomever owns the property of ARM has any right to say how ARM's processors can be used. If Apple buys ARM and does not want to sell the processors to other companies that make competitor phones, then ARM under Apple is fully justified to do so. There is no discussion in this article as to whether ARM/Apple would actually lose money by not selling their processors to competitors. Why would Apple even do this if it would cost them more than they gain? That makes zero sense.
Nobody, especially a government, has the right to tell ARM/Apple what they can or cannot do with their property because they do not own it. It is as simple as that and under the last several regimes of U.S. government, there has been less and less respect for property rights. A successful society cannot remain sustainable when property rights are not upheld and usurped by a paternalistic government. Antitrust laws are just that, paternalistic and elitist.
Ahh, but does the government actually provide good roads? Sure, there are universal roads around America that you don't generally have to pay to use on-demand. But I think we've all gotten used to a universal crappy standard of excuses for roads. When was the last time roads were actually innovated on? Probably in the 1950s for most states.
You're absolutely right. When will people wake up and realize that the government providing everything is no panacea. It takes from those who have some, to those who don't want to have (or some legitimately who do, but can't afford). This is evil and creates class warfare. In the meantime, we all give up more and more of our freedom and liberty all in the name of "fairness." Of course this is not fair at all, it's a manufactured wrong against the natural order.
You are living in the clouds. Since when is anything that the government controls ever actually cheap. There might be the allusion that something is cheap, but no, that just means something is subsidized by taxpayer money and then labeled as "low-cost" or "free". Clearly nothing paid for by taxpayer money is either of these things and it only serves to hide the true and important price information necessary to truly drive down costs.
There goes our chance as a nation to pay off our debt, there goes many private-sector jobs, there goes a lot of freedom and liberty from a nanny-state government. This is a sad-sad day. Instead of reforming healthcare with more government, why not look at tort-reform, getting rid of old and silly regulations in the industry, getting rid of the unfair tax credit towards companies providing health insurance, and many other things. Democrats are such a populist-kissing re-elect me at any cost party. It's really sad. And no, Republicans suck as well.
The real problem here is that the EC wants to have it's hand in everything. There is no such thing as a monopoly except that which is granted by a sovereign government. Yes there are highly uncompetitive markets, but you still always have a choice not to buy something. I'm sick and tired of governments getting in the way of things that they have no business butting into. It's not their company...it's private (non-municipal) and they need to stay away.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh no! Whatever will we do!? Who will do real science research now to further our great nation!? Afterall, nobody else does scientific research and innovation except for government funded labs! /sarcasm
"The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set."
You have it completely backwards. The Constitution limits what government is able to do because it only allows it to do what is explicitly listed in it. Take a look at the 10th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And when they say "fair", they mean "provide they greatest benefit to the rich".
Consumption taxes are about as regressive as you can get.
Nice try, how about proving your statement with a little bit of explanation instead of just hoping that it's true. Have you actually read about the Fair Tax? Do you actually study economics and the current digrace of a tax code that we have right now? Are you really against simplifying the taxes so that they are so simple and transparent that politicians could no longer play favorites with their soup du jour special interests? Come on man, foul play! Don't defend the sucky status quo.
As long as you believe there's only two choices, you're part of the problem.
I second that notion!
This lawsuit is exactly what is needed to put Congress and the FCC in their place. They really think that they can regulate anything in their pompous way. Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does. Just like Congress does not own your house, or your car, or you, they should not be able to infringe on private property at their whim. Of course Google and Facebook don't like Verizon or any other ISP being able to discriminate traffic. So why doesn't Google and/or Facebook open their own ISP operation and compete with Verizon and prove to them that the better business model might be to not discriminate traffic? Please, government is not the answer! It very rarely is. Politicians do not represent us nor do they have god-like knowledge of the best way to do things.
I completely agree with you. What does the government even know about a complex issue? This seems like it will only begin to hamper the innovation that is capable on the Internet without being crushed by regulation. I think the politicians are just trying to do another power grab.
Though I agree that Mozilla has been good for the browser market, that does not mean that they can repeat their success else where. But assuming for argument that it could be a general software fight starter, why can't it do both? Does it have to choose to do one thing only? Maybe Mozilla can start another organization like it for office suites and direct how the organization looks so that it can essentially replicate itself.
Gee, a collective group that is trying to collude and look out for their best interests with protection from the government is the problem? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! /sarcasm
Ahh, don't you just love the unintended and naive consequences of government getting involved in things? Way to inflate the unnatural demand for wind energy! Never under-estimate how ignorant and power hungry (pun intended) politicians are.
Wow, read into my post a little more why don't you? Geez, can't a guy have a non-political opinion about a technical decision?
Agreed. I have many, many complaints about this administration, but at least they're saving some amount of money by utilizing Drupal instead of some proprietary CMS system that might go out of business at any time.
Although I applaud this because at least the federal government didn't waste gobs of money on a proprietary system that might not be around tomorrow, I still can't help but yawn at this news. This has nothing to do with the President or probably even his CTO that he nominated. It was probably just some developer that the federal government has hired who recommended the use of Drupal and suggested open sourcing the modules that they developed.
You're view is really naive. Sure, the government upholds the basic rights of property rights. The majority of political groups believe that is a legitimate role for government. But the rest of the things that you listed, the government does not need to do and in fact does a pretty poor job doing. Now don't get me wrong that if Apple did such a move that it would be pretty shady, but they would own that property by law and should be able to do anything with it, including refusing the right of sale. What part of Apple owning it do you not understand? Just because the collective forcing their will through the government seems ok to you, doesn't make it moral or ethical.
Did I ever claim to know more about economics? I've studied quite a bit and I read about it every day in my spare time, but I didn't claim to know more than anyone else. I was simply crying foul that a government can make a value judgement for millions and billions of people about what is competitive and what is not. Technically, the only monopoly that exists is that which is granted by the government. The government is a monopoly and the only way to be completely rid of its monopoly is by force against it.
Tell me though has it doesn't have to do with property rights. If Apple pays for ARM, by all traditional property right laws, Apple owns ARM outright. It can decide to completely close down ARM and hoard the intellectual property (yes, property is in the title of what that is) and sell it to nobody. They have that right and that is part of what makes America great and unique. People and companies in general are ransacked less by the government than many other countries. Just ask the Chinese citizens how they like their communist government taking their property from them at will.
For all of their processors? I would find that fact hard to believe. Plus there's PIC, AVR, etc. The list goes on and on of viable competition that companies could use for the microprocessor needs besides ARM.
Which came first? Antitrust laws, or private property? I think private property is always first. You completely ignored the point of my comment.
There are also many very excellent MIPS-based microprocessors out there used in all kinds of embedded devices. Also, Freescale makes excellent micros as well. There's a lot of competition out there.
Antitrust is a crock. Nobody except for whomever owns the property of ARM has any right to say how ARM's processors can be used. If Apple buys ARM and does not want to sell the processors to other companies that make competitor phones, then ARM under Apple is fully justified to do so. There is no discussion in this article as to whether ARM/Apple would actually lose money by not selling their processors to competitors. Why would Apple even do this if it would cost them more than they gain? That makes zero sense.
Nobody, especially a government, has the right to tell ARM/Apple what they can or cannot do with their property because they do not own it. It is as simple as that and under the last several regimes of U.S. government, there has been less and less respect for property rights. A successful society cannot remain sustainable when property rights are not upheld and usurped by a paternalistic government. Antitrust laws are just that, paternalistic and elitist.
"With large ISP's fighting local democracy I can understand why public pressure for better broadband infrastructure arises."
You meant fighting local socialism.
Ahh, but does the government actually provide good roads? Sure, there are universal roads around America that you don't generally have to pay to use on-demand. But I think we've all gotten used to a universal crappy standard of excuses for roads. When was the last time roads were actually innovated on? Probably in the 1950s for most states.
You're absolutely right. When will people wake up and realize that the government providing everything is no panacea. It takes from those who have some, to those who don't want to have (or some legitimately who do, but can't afford). This is evil and creates class warfare. In the meantime, we all give up more and more of our freedom and liberty all in the name of "fairness." Of course this is not fair at all, it's a manufactured wrong against the natural order.
You are living in the clouds. Since when is anything that the government controls ever actually cheap. There might be the allusion that something is cheap, but no, that just means something is subsidized by taxpayer money and then labeled as "low-cost" or "free". Clearly nothing paid for by taxpayer money is either of these things and it only serves to hide the true and important price information necessary to truly drive down costs.
There goes our chance as a nation to pay off our debt, there goes many private-sector jobs, there goes a lot of freedom and liberty from a nanny-state government. This is a sad-sad day. Instead of reforming healthcare with more government, why not look at tort-reform, getting rid of old and silly regulations in the industry, getting rid of the unfair tax credit towards companies providing health insurance, and many other things. Democrats are such a populist-kissing re-elect me at any cost party. It's really sad. And no, Republicans suck as well.
The real problem here is that the EC wants to have it's hand in everything. There is no such thing as a monopoly except that which is granted by a sovereign government. Yes there are highly uncompetitive markets, but you still always have a choice not to buy something. I'm sick and tired of governments getting in the way of things that they have no business butting into. It's not their company...it's private (non-municipal) and they need to stay away.
hehe. Have you seen Idiocracy? 'Nuf said.