If that were the case, this problem would have had to have been solved before you or I were born. China crawling out of the post industrial era has been inevitable since that era began. This isn't something new, economist have been fretting over it since the 1920s. It was simply ignored for the longest time thanks to WW2 and some less than brilliant decisions before, after and during the Great Leap Forward.
Take out the populism and I think the GP's complaint is that Wired is pretty much the tech equivalent of Time magazine. It is not awful, but it isn't that great either.
The saddest part of listening to the FCC commissioners was that they boiled it down to those same two points. The truth is this should be treated like an engineering problem, not one of ideals. Because of that we will neither have a proper definition of what "network neutrality" is, nor will we allow anyone who does within a hundred yards of the table. Because of that, if anything is done or if nothing is done, we will only end up with abuses, because we can only look at it through that lens with the same set of awful solutions.
Don't get me wrong, I like what Copps and the others had to say, but without a proper definition, it will go nowhere. Instead, McDowell and his like minded ilk will get any and everything their hearts desire. If I were in that room I would have just walked out at that point.
So what do we get? A guarantee that no one will screw with Apple's app store as long as they keep a finger in AT&T's pie.
I think it is worth pointing out that the FCC isn't the DOJ or DHS or the FTC. All of these arms have different missions, even if we like to throw all of them in the basket of "the government".
We love to say, "Would you like to hand it over to the government?", but no one ever asks "What part of the government?". We just lump it all together into "government = bad" and some days, I think we let our trains of thought run unproductive. Of course I wouldn't want it put into the hands of someone like the DOJ, their whole mission is to prosecute as many people as possible.
This has no place on a government sponsored site, especially when it poses as some kind of "direct democracy" via American Idol. If Cantor wants to do this fine, but he should do it on his own dime, not mine. The same goes for the other side of the aisle. If I go to a.gov site, I go there for facts and services, not political posturing.
Especially when Anonymous uses the exact same illegal DoS botnets the criminals use.
While I agree with the sentiment that they are largely pissing in the wind, I want some documentation on this one. What little bit of their arsenal I've taken apart, I haven't seen any connection to "illegal DoS botnets", unless those "illegal DoS botnets" you are talking about are Windows. Until then, I'll have to accept this as a endangering, bald-faced smear.
That avoids the problem. There are plenty of comentators for Fox who are well versed and in other enviornments, fully capable of providing interesting and infomative dialogue. The problem is that Fox's format doesn't lend itself to anything other than a list of bullet points that hopefully follow up with a lot of loud arguing. Its a game of course, one to get the viewer emotionally attached to the story and only emotionally attached to it (they'd rather you not get mentally involved, nothing against you, the view, but that would require more work and break the formula). Thats how they draw in viewers.
Take a look at their credits and you'll often see "Fox News Product" (no, I'm not joking). My point is, it isn't news, it is trash news, news-whiz or just bad news. Hard Copy/A Current Affair/Etc. with a defined political perspective. That doesn't mean their perspective is right or wrong, the problem has nothing to do with that, it is quality that sucks.
Don't believe me? Watch 5 minutes of Fox and Friends.
"I got fucked over once, by a guy in an alley. He had a club and he was wearing a sign that said, 'I'm here to fuck you over!'. When you see people painting signs that say, 'I'm here to fuck you over!' run. You should do the same when people start businesses and they don't sign agreements that they won't paint 'I'm here to fuck you over!' signs or that they won't follow you around with clubs. Because there is no law against beating someone with a club in that neighborhood."
Immediately people say that someone who thinks that way is obviously crazy, a delusional paranoid. The problem is that they don't realize that they are in the same neighborhood he got fucked over in and they often don't believe in carrying their own club.
When I worked at Spacely Sprockets people thought that the FDA, OSHA, the DOJ and the EPA hated us, but no one wanted us dead more than Cogswell's Cogs.
I'd argue that it isn't limited government, but limited transition of power. Had we not had that *it-works-because-it's-broken* feature, the US would have probably have gone through numerous republics by now.
It keeps thing an angry public from voting in communists and giving them full power, who kill off the capitalist, who destroy themselves before a group of oligarchs buy out everyone and sell off the military and Washington monument, who get killed off by a group of nutty-home-spun nationalists, who then turn into fascist because they are incapable of running things, etc, etc.
From the standpoint of stability there is a certain grace to the idea of making sure your rulers get mildly corrupted before you add a new batch in.
For Boeing and Lockheed Martin they end up being part of the supply chain and because of that they have no incentive to build cheap and fly cheap, their goal is to create and sell high because someone else is going to pay for it and often deal with it. If SpaceX puts their own people in the air with their own hardware, they have the motivation to keep prices low and when it comes around to getting other people and things in orbit, sell high.
Odds are if you are looking for the lowest bidder between Lockheed Martin selling NASA the necessary hardware and NASA maintaining it/managing it/training/etc. and SpaceX contracted through NASA, it isn't hard to figure out who the winner is.
Currently it doesn't serve SpaceX to do a poor job, they are comparatively young. Ask me again when someone gives them a 15-25 year contract.
I think some people would be less inclined to react with a mob mentality if this stuff were about governments using actual laws. So far it has just been large business and governments leaning on Wikileaks and anyone else involved. How can the average citizen respect that? If Wikileaks were charged with an actual crime, one that is on the books, one that you or I could be charged with, I think the public would have a very different reaction to this. Instead it just goes on a laundry list of items involving threats and intimidation that have fueled a number of dissenting opinions.
Occasionally I see folks linking to that site and I won't say that I disagree with some of the stuff I see there (as far as names and numbers go), but man, as far as the mindset of the world's Capitalists goes, they really don't get it. Their "enemy" really isn't sitting in a smoke filled room asking themselves, "How can we control the Chinese people?". That is completely divorced from their view of the world. It is just as bad as right-wing Americans who think that every Muslim on Earth spends 16 hours a day contemplating the destruction of the US. As long as you look at the world that way you are destined to be somebody's puppet.
I'd like to read that and confirm it, but I'm afraid to. Don't want to get knocked out of any future job opportunities that require a security clearance.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been debating this with myself for a long time and I've come to the following (admittedly infantile) conclusion:
Capitalism - Getting capital by providing a good or service.
Corporatism - Getting capital without ever providing anything.
If that were the case, this problem would have had to have been solved before you or I were born. China crawling out of the post industrial era has been inevitable since that era began. This isn't something new, economist have been fretting over it since the 1920s. It was simply ignored for the longest time thanks to WW2 and some less than brilliant decisions before, after and during the Great Leap Forward.
Apparently someone hasn't been to the library in a while. DDC places religion in the 200s, literature in 800s.
Take out the populism and I think the GP's complaint is that Wired is pretty much the tech equivalent of Time magazine. It is not awful, but it isn't that great either.
Yes, but she can only see them in hurds.
The saddest part of listening to the FCC commissioners was that they boiled it down to those same two points. The truth is this should be treated like an engineering problem, not one of ideals. Because of that we will neither have a proper definition of what "network neutrality" is, nor will we allow anyone who does within a hundred yards of the table. Because of that, if anything is done or if nothing is done, we will only end up with abuses, because we can only look at it through that lens with the same set of awful solutions.
Don't get me wrong, I like what Copps and the others had to say, but without a proper definition, it will go nowhere. Instead, McDowell and his like minded ilk will get any and everything their hearts desire. If I were in that room I would have just walked out at that point.
So what do we get? A guarantee that no one will screw with Apple's app store as long as they keep a finger in AT&T's pie.
I think it is worth pointing out that the FCC isn't the DOJ or DHS or the FTC. All of these arms have different missions, even if we like to throw all of them in the basket of "the government".
We love to say, "Would you like to hand it over to the government?", but no one ever asks "What part of the government?". We just lump it all together into "government = bad" and some days, I think we let our trains of thought run unproductive. Of course I wouldn't want it put into the hands of someone like the DOJ, their whole mission is to prosecute as many people as possible.
It is obscene on multiple levels.
This has no place on a government sponsored site, especially when it poses as some kind of "direct democracy" via American Idol. If Cantor wants to do this fine, but he should do it on his own dime, not mine. The same goes for the other side of the aisle. If I go to a .gov site, I go there for facts and services, not political posturing.
Especially when Anonymous uses the exact same illegal DoS botnets the criminals use.
While I agree with the sentiment that they are largely pissing in the wind, I want some documentation on this one. What little bit of their arsenal I've taken apart, I haven't seen any connection to "illegal DoS botnets", unless those "illegal DoS botnets" you are talking about are Windows. Until then, I'll have to accept this as a endangering, bald-faced smear.
That avoids the problem. There are plenty of comentators for Fox who are well versed and in other enviornments, fully capable of providing interesting and infomative dialogue. The problem is that Fox's format doesn't lend itself to anything other than a list of bullet points that hopefully follow up with a lot of loud arguing. Its a game of course, one to get the viewer emotionally attached to the story and only emotionally attached to it (they'd rather you not get mentally involved, nothing against you, the view, but that would require more work and break the formula). Thats how they draw in viewers.
Take a look at their credits and you'll often see "Fox News Product" (no, I'm not joking). My point is, it isn't news, it is trash news, news-whiz or just bad news. Hard Copy/A Current Affair/Etc. with a defined political perspective. That doesn't mean their perspective is right or wrong, the problem has nothing to do with that, it is quality that sucks.
Don't believe me? Watch 5 minutes of Fox and Friends.
Except they aren't beating, raping and eventually pimping out women or running drugs or guns.
I tend to boil Stallman down to this:
"I got fucked over once, by a guy in an alley. He had a club and he was wearing a sign that said, 'I'm here to fuck you over!'. When you see people painting signs that say, 'I'm here to fuck you over!' run. You should do the same when people start businesses and they don't sign agreements that they won't paint 'I'm here to fuck you over!' signs or that they won't follow you around with clubs. Because there is no law against beating someone with a club in that neighborhood."
Immediately people say that someone who thinks that way is obviously crazy, a delusional paranoid. The problem is that they don't realize that they are in the same neighborhood he got fucked over in and they often don't believe in carrying their own club.
A herd of cats are incapable of organized crime.
When I worked at Spacely Sprockets people thought that the FDA, OSHA, the DOJ and the EPA hated us, but no one wanted us dead more than Cogswell's Cogs.
Because they don't have a theater to shout, "fire" in.
I'd argue that it isn't limited government, but limited transition of power. Had we not had that *it-works-because-it's-broken* feature, the US would have probably have gone through numerous republics by now.
It keeps thing an angry public from voting in communists and giving them full power, who kill off the capitalist, who destroy themselves before a group of oligarchs buy out everyone and sell off the military and Washington monument, who get killed off by a group of nutty-home-spun nationalists, who then turn into fascist because they are incapable of running things, etc, etc.
From the standpoint of stability there is a certain grace to the idea of making sure your rulers get mildly corrupted before you add a new batch in.
For Boeing and Lockheed Martin they end up being part of the supply chain and because of that they have no incentive to build cheap and fly cheap, their goal is to create and sell high because someone else is going to pay for it and often deal with it. If SpaceX puts their own people in the air with their own hardware, they have the motivation to keep prices low and when it comes around to getting other people and things in orbit, sell high.
Odds are if you are looking for the lowest bidder between Lockheed Martin selling NASA the necessary hardware and NASA maintaining it/managing it/training/etc. and SpaceX contracted through NASA, it isn't hard to figure out who the winner is.
Currently it doesn't serve SpaceX to do a poor job, they are comparatively young. Ask me again when someone gives them a 15-25 year contract.
No idea what the first official response to that would be, but I'm pretty sure their second bullet point says, "We don't negotiate with terrorist".
$%^&#@, reviewers got me again.
Now I'm gonna have to crush like 20 yellow Fiestaware pitchers to test my homemade GM tubes. Thanks for nothing Amazon.
I think some people would be less inclined to react with a mob mentality if this stuff were about governments using actual laws. So far it has just been large business and governments leaning on Wikileaks and anyone else involved. How can the average citizen respect that? If Wikileaks were charged with an actual crime, one that is on the books, one that you or I could be charged with, I think the public would have a very different reaction to this. Instead it just goes on a laundry list of items involving threats and intimidation that have fueled a number of dissenting opinions.
I can understand the frustration, but that does seems like the less productive solution.
Occasionally I see folks linking to that site and I won't say that I disagree with some of the stuff I see there (as far as names and numbers go), but man, as far as the mindset of the world's Capitalists goes, they really don't get it. Their "enemy" really isn't sitting in a smoke filled room asking themselves, "How can we control the Chinese people?". That is completely divorced from their view of the world. It is just as bad as right-wing Americans who think that every Muslim on Earth spends 16 hours a day contemplating the destruction of the US. As long as you look at the world that way you are destined to be somebody's puppet.
In the 107th Congress, there were:
*Senate:
- Dean Barkley (I - MN) [Independence Party of Minnesota]
*House of Representatives:
- Bernie Sanders (I - VT) [democratic socialist, only one actually]
-Jim Jeffords (I - VT) [Former Republican]
I'd like to read that and confirm it, but I'm afraid to. Don't want to get knocked out of any future job opportunities that require a security clearance.