I think the present administration is generally less keen on the Sherman Act than the previous administration.
What, because it's Republican? Whose FTC let the megamergers of the 90's go through in the first place? Whose DoJ botched the handling of Microsoft to begin with?
You may dislike Bush, hate his politics, whatever - this is an issue that has nothing to do with the Republicans (or, for that matter, the Democrats). Smart politicians don't stand in the way of letting businesses succeed. Lucky ones guess correctly when to step in and stop them. Bill Clinton is a very smart politician. He's not a terribly lucky one.
Re:Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRON
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
I know this is a bit off-topic, but it plays into the discussion at large.
Voting strategically is always a wise choice. Because of my political beliefs, I tend to make my strategic choices in the primaries (there have only been a handful of occasions in my life where I've voted, or seriously considered voting, or would have voted, for a Democrat; all involved hopeless morons running as Republicans, or were from the strongly religious-right wing of the party). Nonetheless, you're right that the major parties are close to each other on many issues; this is a direct consequence of the winner-take-all nature of our political system, which forces parties to follow the wishes of the people very closely or lose their influence.
If you want to influence politics, find a close race. Get together a group of voters - call yourself anything you like, just have several thousand members - and shop yourself to the candidates. If you can show that you have organization, and that your members care enough about the issue to get out and vote for the candidate, you're an effective political force. Forget corporations; they may foot the bill for political campaigns, but people pulling levers and punching cards elect politicians.
Campaign finance reform was one of those issues that few in the public really understood well enough to fear as much as they should - because if people and corporations and trade unions and all those other PACs can't provide the money to get a political message out, all the power winds up in in the hands of the media, who have the only means to get a message to a lot of people. (This isn't a black-helicopter rant, nor one about liberal bias; it's much more about the danger of letting a tiny handful of companies decide what political speech will be permitted to be effective. Take a look at the blustering over the New Hampshire presidential primary to see how nuanced their coverage would be.)
ON TOPIC: the administration has stacked the deck on these things. So did Clinton's, and Bush I's, and Reagan's, and... It's not good science, but it's politics. It's only scary when they start making rules that really should be legislative decisions; at least you can vote for or against a member of Congress.
It's not about cops v. criminals, not at all. For starters, people don't like criminals, but they don't seem to be bothered by low-level copyright violation.
Music is, effectively, free. Perhaps it's good, perhaps it's crap, but it's extraordinarily difficult to go anywhere and not be surrounded by music - stores, hotels, cars, homes, you name it.
People don't pay for music per se. They pay to hear what they want, when they want. They pay to get a known good-quality recording of something. They pay for liner notes and, amazingly, out of a sense of duty to the artist.
Software is different; I'm not going to pay money to see Will Wright code, live, on stage. He doesn't get money unless I buy his games. I can, however, hear an mp3 or two of some artist's work and decide that I want a copy. Wiser artists give some of their stuff away for this very reason.
I don't doubt that the attitude of warez traffickers is detrimental to society, but "let the market sort it out" isn't the same as "there shouldn't be a market because information wants to be free". Maybe we'll find that (as with the cotton gin) people really are horrid thieves, and we have to protect the artists. Maybe we'll find that (as with so many copy protection schemes for software) it's just more trouble than it's worth, effectively keeping the honest people honest.
Ice is less dense than fresh water at 0 degrees C. In fact, if you have floating ice, and it melts, the ocean level will go basically nowhere (it's already displacing volume according to its mass, just as it will when it melts).
If it goes anywhere, it will go down (because not all the ice in your 64 oz. cup is floating -- some of it is probably stuck to the sides).
Slashdot Mirror
What, because it's Republican? Whose FTC let the megamergers of the 90's go through in the first place? Whose DoJ botched the handling of Microsoft to begin with?
You may dislike Bush, hate his politics, whatever - this is an issue that has nothing to do with the Republicans (or, for that matter, the Democrats). Smart politicians don't stand in the way of letting businesses succeed. Lucky ones guess correctly when to step in and stop them. Bill Clinton is a very smart politician. He's not a terribly lucky one.
Voting strategically is always a wise choice. Because of my political beliefs, I tend to make my strategic choices in the primaries (there have only been a handful of occasions in my life where I've voted, or seriously considered voting, or would have voted, for a Democrat; all involved hopeless morons running as Republicans, or were from the strongly religious-right wing of the party). Nonetheless, you're right that the major parties are close to each other on many issues; this is a direct consequence of the winner-take-all nature of our political system, which forces parties to follow the wishes of the people very closely or lose their influence.
If you want to influence politics, find a close race. Get together a group of voters - call yourself anything you like, just have several thousand members - and shop yourself to the candidates. If you can show that you have organization, and that your members care enough about the issue to get out and vote for the candidate, you're an effective political force. Forget corporations; they may foot the bill for political campaigns, but people pulling levers and punching cards elect politicians.
Campaign finance reform was one of those issues that few in the public really understood well enough to fear as much as they should - because if people and corporations and trade unions and all those other PACs can't provide the money to get a political message out, all the power winds up in in the hands of the media, who have the only means to get a message to a lot of people. (This isn't a black-helicopter rant, nor one about liberal bias; it's much more about the danger of letting a tiny handful of companies decide what political speech will be permitted to be effective. Take a look at the blustering over the New Hampshire presidential primary to see how nuanced their coverage would be.)
ON TOPIC: the administration has stacked the deck on these things. So did Clinton's, and Bush I's, and Reagan's, and...
It's not good science, but it's politics. It's only scary when they start making rules that really should be legislative decisions; at least you can vote for or against a member of Congress.
Music is, effectively, free. Perhaps it's good, perhaps it's crap, but it's extraordinarily difficult to go anywhere and not be surrounded by music - stores, hotels, cars, homes, you name it.
People don't pay for music per se. They pay to hear what they want, when they want. They pay to get a known good-quality recording of something. They pay for liner notes and, amazingly, out of a sense of duty to the artist.
Software is different; I'm not going to pay money to see Will Wright code, live, on stage. He doesn't get money unless I buy his games. I can, however, hear an mp3 or two of some artist's work and decide that I want a copy. Wiser artists give some of their stuff away for this very reason.
I don't doubt that the attitude of warez traffickers is detrimental to society, but "let the market sort it out" isn't the same as "there shouldn't be a market because information wants to be free". Maybe we'll find that (as with the cotton gin) people really are horrid thieves, and we have to protect the artists. Maybe we'll find that (as with so many copy protection schemes for software) it's just more trouble than it's worth, effectively keeping the honest people honest.
This troll, I must feed:
Ice is less dense than fresh water at 0 degrees C. In fact, if you have floating ice, and it melts, the ocean level will go basically nowhere (it's already displacing volume according to its mass, just as it will when it melts).
If it goes anywhere, it will go down (because not all the ice in your 64 oz. cup is floating -- some of it is probably stuck to the sides).
Try #CNN_Newsfeed on chat.cnn.com:6667 for a live feed of closed-captions off CNN.