Um... no.... big companies are wrong when they do wrong things... which with certain big companies is every time they do anything (RIAA, MPAA, members of the communications cartel, big oil, big pharma) and others rarely (google) and some not-at-all. The problem is that the high visibility ones (listed first there) think they're the center of the universe and are corporatists instead of capitalists
D) I seriously hope you're playing dumb in trying to claim that "censorship" and "ratings" are the same thing - all "ratings" do is tell you what the content of a program is in a quick and bottled up manner (not that they cannot be abused... but i don't see them actively being abused)
C) Just because government CAN be evil and inefficient doesn't mean government MUST be evil and inefficient. The sooner you learn that, the better off the planet will be. Government MUST exist, that's a simple fact of life - want your consumer rights protected (like the right to watch whatever the fuck you want on TV)? then you need government to protect them.
A) Two different functions, two different tactics.
If these things are so hard for you to comprehend then please do us a favor and refrain from voting because you don't have the intellectual maturity to be capable of making a rational choice on the matter.
D) there is a difference between "Censorship" and "Enforcing ratings"
did you see the part where i said NO CENSORSHIP - ie the station can broadcast WHATEVER THE FSCK THEY WANT (so long as it's not claimed to be news) so long as they accurately mark the rating? all the FCCs job would be is to bitchslap them if they lied about the rating.
C) as for fact checking.. one of the LEAST inefficient parts of the government is the GAO - contrary to what many people think government doesn't HAVE to be inefficient.. people just have to hold it's nose to the grindstone to make sure it stays efficient (some that americans are admittedly poor at doing). plus the system can be a reactive instead of a proactive one - someone files a complaint (very specifically about something) and then the agency investigates
A) proactive prevention is better than reactive lawsuits/arms race, etc in this case
Some of us want the FCC to be turned into what it SHOULD be
it SHOULD have the following functions A) make sure no two stations are "broadcasting over" E/O (IE maintain the "licensed" area of the spectrum, this is a necessary thing to prevent anticompetetive behavior like signal jaming) B) Make sure no one company owns too many stations (like it used to prior to the late-90s republican congress and clinton doing something stupid [IE putting his signature on it]) - this prevents undue influence of groups like clearchannel from manipulating the american people (there is a GREAT Henry Wallace quote relevant to this - look up "henry wallace" and "american facist") C) Make sure news programs don't broadcast propaganda - an informed, of the REAL facts, electorate is a absolute necessity for a democratic state D) Make sure advertised show ratings are adhered to - NOT to tell them "You cannot broadcast X" simply "You cannot broadcast X and say it's rated PG when it's actually rated NC17" (IE ANYTHING GOES on entertainment as long as you properly mark the broadcast's rating)
those who commit argumentum ad hominem, or any other logical fallacy, as held as having lost no matter what the merits of his argument. If he would like to restate his argument without resorting to insults I will gladly dissect it and destroy it point by point (a rather trivial matter given what he's shown us of his "argument already")
Maybe if you took a really healthy dump and got rid of that hippie liberal crap, you'd realize this.
I love this part, this is the part in which you show that you don't know what you're talking about because you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem.
and that is undeniably, unexcusably, child abuse. *grabs dev pysch text off his shelf and opens it up and points out what happens to children raised under such conditions*
All it takes is for the first case to make it to SCOTUS and for SCOTUS to agree with Moglin (which i bet they would if it's explained how assinine they are - IE something someone invented 25 years ago is "patented" by microsoft 6 months ago, and now they're suing over it).
If SCOTUS agrees with Moglin it instantly invalidates all software patents. 235 Motions to dismiss with prejudice from the defendants, and possible countersuits.
Re:Now there's the Slashdot I know and love!
on
Jack Valenti, Dead at 85
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think a lot of people here are incapable of feeling an ounce of respect for someone who did such much damage to their rights, and I cannot say that is an unreasonable feeling.
He worked to undermine their rights (and succeeded) - why should they consider him anything other than vermin?
Re:Now there's the Slashdot I know and love!
on
Jack Valenti, Dead at 85
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, not "because he didn't want you to watch some movies for free". You're clearly ignorant on the entire subject of DRM, the DMCA, etc.
It's because he participated in the wholesale theft of consumer rights that people are mad at him.
before the trolls come in - know that this doesn't debunk global warming. What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?"
really don't think that most people who believe that humans are causing the current global warming also think humans are the only cause of global warming.
Bingo.. tell but to pro-pollutionists it's easier to misrepresent what we actually think so they can accuse us of groupthink. Since joe-blow-dipshit-republican knows more than a climatologist.
No, he's not - i have had interaction with him before and he helps enforce status quo-compliant POV in a certain medical article in contradiction of medical facts.
and that is why i don't edit, or trust, wikipedia anymore - corruption all the way to the top
i agreed with you until you ragged on dyslexia.. because that one ACTUALLY IS A DISORDER and is older than the "fad" of making everything a disorder - and it actually involves the brain having a problem with spatial implacement of visual and auditory stimuli. My brother has it, and he's smarter than most people by far. His spelling is great, and he reads 2 living languages, and 3 dead languages - he just reads and writes slower.
The "editorial board" means nothing if the people on it cannot be trusted - i stopped editing wikipedia when it was "reaching consensus" (forced consensus by loud status-quo enforcers with friends on ArbCom) on an article i was trying to improve the quality of (medical-related article with major human rights implications on the status quo in america) - it was being held in a position of bias by force of a few users threatening and harassing any editor that came along to try and unbias the article.
that's why i refuse to edit wikipedia anymore - and i don't trust them (i still use them as a metasource but my rule is VERIFY, VERIFY, VERIFY) - Wikipedia works on consensus, and consensus and fact can differ in many situations: such as the cultural status quo
consumer protection is nanny-stating now? christ you people are fucking idiots, you keep extending the term nanny-state to everything - eventually you're going to consider any action taken by a government to protect it's citizens (that's a fucking governments job you dipshit) "nanny-state"
why don't you fucking ANARCHISTS go buy an island somewhere and leave us rational human beings the fuck alone - we're sick of your naive shit
... drops any box engaged in suspicious activity... or they did back when ISPs were not run by big national corporations staffed by mindless shills and good people subjugated by red tape
Oh, and if you would point out the "evidence" that the magical free market (MFM) doesn't solve problems I'd like to see it
Let me fetch you any accurate US history textbook.
----
War on poverty had moderate success until reagan gutted it (yet another pesky piece of information you'd learn in a history textbook). War on drugs? don't be a dipshit drughead and it won't be a problem, i don't particularily care of potentially extremely explosive drug labs to be running in the house next door. "political correct crusades" come from the carebears (different from liberals) but even more from CORPORATE LAWYERS (they're mostly republican scum).
----
A government solution that works? if you haven't seen one, you're blind - i'll address your specifics
(Read this entire thing before reacting) Public Education is better than private education for the most part, excepting where it's been gutted by dumbass republicans. It has room for improvement, just like private education - they both have exceptionally bad examples and good examples. On aggregate public education, which by the laws of our country all the way up to the constitution, must be religiously neutral and teach science accurately is better. That being said the way public education is (under)funded in this country is a joke and could use complete revamping.
Gun control, most of what you think of as gun control is curteously of the carebears like hillary. It's reactionary, misguided, ineffective and a nuisance. I think "zomg i have to have guns" people are nuts, but I also think the past attempts by carebears at gun control are a joke.
We don't have, and never tried, public healthcare in this country - that's part of the problem, healthcare expenses are astronomical because of the inefficient duplication of services and expenses. Furthermore the perscription drug program the republicans pushed through was designed to be a hand out of the big pharma and the insurance industries and is a disgrace. I look at canada and the UK's public health care systems and I see far fewer problems than this joke of health care the "Free market" is providing.
As for more succesful examples of government solutions: endangered species act, EPA (Before it's teeth were pulled by Bush II), FEMA under Clinton
Government solutions aren't always the best solution, but they're sometimes the only solution. The free market has never been, and will never be, the solution to human problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... no.... big companies are wrong when they do wrong things... which with certain big companies is every time they do anything (RIAA, MPAA, members of the communications cartel, big oil, big pharma) and others rarely (google) and some not-at-all. The problem is that the high visibility ones (listed first there) think they're the center of the universe and are corporatists instead of capitalists
D) I seriously hope you're playing dumb in trying to claim that "censorship" and "ratings" are the same thing - all "ratings" do is tell you what the content of a program is in a quick and bottled up manner (not that they cannot be abused... but i don't see them actively being abused)
C) Just because government CAN be evil and inefficient doesn't mean government MUST be evil and inefficient. The sooner you learn that, the better off the planet will be. Government MUST exist, that's a simple fact of life - want your consumer rights protected (like the right to watch whatever the fuck you want on TV)? then you need government to protect them.
A) Two different functions, two different tactics.
If these things are so hard for you to comprehend then please do us a favor and refrain from voting because you don't have the intellectual maturity to be capable of making a rational choice on the matter.
did you even READ my last one?
D) there is a difference between "Censorship" and "Enforcing ratings"
did you see the part where i said NO CENSORSHIP - ie the station can broadcast WHATEVER THE FSCK THEY WANT (so long as it's not claimed to be news) so long as they accurately mark the rating? all the FCCs job would be is to bitchslap them if they lied about the rating.
C) as for fact checking.. one of the LEAST inefficient parts of the government is the GAO - contrary to what many people think government doesn't HAVE to be inefficient.. people just have to hold it's nose to the grindstone to make sure it stays efficient (some that americans are admittedly poor at doing). plus the system can be a reactive instead of a proactive one - someone files a complaint (very specifically about something) and then the agency investigates
A) proactive prevention is better than reactive lawsuits/arms race, etc in this case
Some of us want the FCC to be turned into what it SHOULD be
it SHOULD have the following functions
A) make sure no two stations are "broadcasting over" E/O (IE maintain the "licensed" area of the spectrum, this is a necessary thing to prevent anticompetetive behavior like signal jaming)
B) Make sure no one company owns too many stations (like it used to prior to the late-90s republican congress and clinton doing something stupid [IE putting his signature on it]) - this prevents undue influence of groups like clearchannel from manipulating the american people (there is a GREAT Henry Wallace quote relevant to this - look up "henry wallace" and "american facist")
C) Make sure news programs don't broadcast propaganda - an informed, of the REAL facts, electorate is a absolute necessity for a democratic state
D) Make sure advertised show ratings are adhered to - NOT to tell them "You cannot broadcast X" simply "You cannot broadcast X and say it's rated PG when it's actually rated NC17" (IE ANYTHING GOES on entertainment as long as you properly mark the broadcast's rating)
maybe some other functions
yes more specifically to georgia, because in iowa that statement is utter BS - i graduated in 2002 and computers were very much required
those who commit argumentum ad hominem, or any other logical fallacy, as held as having lost no matter what the merits of his argument. If he would like to restate his argument without resorting to insults I will gladly dissect it and destroy it point by point (a rather trivial matter given what he's shown us of his "argument already")
I love this part, this is the part in which you show that you don't know what you're talking about because you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem.
and that is undeniably, unexcusably, child abuse. *grabs dev pysch text off his shelf and opens it up and points out what happens to children raised under such conditions*
to state that the bible is the source source of those moral themes is extremely arrogant.
All it takes is for the first case to make it to SCOTUS and for SCOTUS to agree with Moglin (which i bet they would if it's explained how assinine they are - IE something someone invented 25 years ago is "patented" by microsoft 6 months ago, and now they're suing over it).
If SCOTUS agrees with Moglin it instantly invalidates all software patents. 235 Motions to dismiss with prejudice from the defendants, and possible countersuits.
I think a lot of people here are incapable of feeling an ounce of respect for someone who did such much damage to their rights, and I cannot say that is an unreasonable feeling.
He worked to undermine their rights (and succeeded) - why should they consider him anything other than vermin?
No, not "because he didn't want you to watch some movies for free". You're clearly ignorant on the entire subject of DRM, the DMCA, etc.
It's because he participated in the wholesale theft of consumer rights that people are mad at him.
looks like i've been modded down by the right-wing thought police - I was up to +5 insightful, then they came on and attacked.
if i remember the numbers correctly we've caued a 33% increase in atmospheric carbon load in the last 100 years
You need to learn two things
1) Reading Comprehension
2) Manners
before the trolls come in - know that this doesn't debunk global warming. What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?"
the answer is absolutely undeniably: Yes
it's never been stated that we're the only cause.
STARTING?!
really don't think that most people who believe that humans are causing the current global warming also think humans are the only cause of global warming.
Bingo.. tell but to pro-pollutionists it's easier to misrepresent what we actually think so they can accuse us of groupthink. Since joe-blow-dipshit-republican knows more than a climatologist.
No, he's not - i have had interaction with him before and he helps enforce status quo-compliant POV in a certain medical article in contradiction of medical facts.
and that is why i don't edit, or trust, wikipedia anymore - corruption all the way to the top
i agreed with you until you ragged on dyslexia.. because that one ACTUALLY IS A DISORDER and is older than the "fad" of making everything a disorder - and it actually involves the brain having a problem with spatial implacement of visual and auditory stimuli. My brother has it, and he's smarter than most people by far. His spelling is great, and he reads 2 living languages, and 3 dead languages - he just reads and writes slower.
the dippy senator doesn't know that games cannot show all their "footage" - ever heard of an MMORPG senator dipshit?
The "editorial board" means nothing if the people on it cannot be trusted - i stopped editing wikipedia when it was "reaching consensus" (forced consensus by loud status-quo enforcers with friends on ArbCom) on an article i was trying to improve the quality of (medical-related article with major human rights implications on the status quo in america) - it was being held in a position of bias by force of a few users threatening and harassing any editor that came along to try and unbias the article.
that's why i refuse to edit wikipedia anymore - and i don't trust them (i still use them as a metasource but my rule is VERIFY, VERIFY, VERIFY) - Wikipedia works on consensus, and consensus and fact can differ in many situations: such as the cultural status quo
consumer protection is nanny-stating now? christ you people are fucking idiots, you keep extending the term nanny-state to everything - eventually you're going to consider any action taken by a government to protect it's citizens (that's a fucking governments job you dipshit) "nanny-state"
why don't you fucking ANARCHISTS go buy an island somewhere and leave us rational human beings the fuck alone - we're sick of your naive shit
... drops any box engaged in suspicious activity... or they did back when ISPs were not run by big national corporations staffed by mindless shills and good people subjugated by red tape
Oh, and if you would point out the "evidence" that the magical free market (MFM) doesn't solve problems I'd like to see it
Let me fetch you any accurate US history textbook.
----
War on poverty had moderate success until reagan gutted it (yet another pesky piece of information you'd learn in a history textbook). War on drugs? don't be a dipshit drughead and it won't be a problem, i don't particularily care of potentially extremely explosive drug labs to be running in the house next door. "political correct crusades" come from the carebears (different from liberals) but even more from CORPORATE LAWYERS (they're mostly republican scum).
----
A government solution that works? if you haven't seen one, you're blind - i'll address your specifics
(Read this entire thing before reacting) Public Education is better than private education for the most part, excepting where it's been gutted by dumbass republicans. It has room for improvement, just like private education - they both have exceptionally bad examples and good examples. On aggregate public education, which by the laws of our country all the way up to the constitution, must be religiously neutral and teach science accurately is better. That being said the way public education is (under)funded in this country is a joke and could use complete revamping.
Gun control, most of what you think of as gun control is curteously of the carebears like hillary. It's reactionary, misguided, ineffective and a nuisance. I think "zomg i have to have guns" people are nuts, but I also think the past attempts by carebears at gun control are a joke.
We don't have, and never tried, public healthcare in this country - that's part of the problem, healthcare expenses are astronomical because of the inefficient duplication of services and expenses. Furthermore the perscription drug program the republicans pushed through was designed to be a hand out of the big pharma and the insurance industries and is a disgrace. I look at canada and the UK's public health care systems and I see far fewer problems than this joke of health care the "Free market" is providing.
As for more succesful examples of government solutions: endangered species act, EPA (Before it's teeth were pulled by Bush II), FEMA under Clinton
Government solutions aren't always the best solution, but they're sometimes the only solution. The free market has never been, and will never be, the solution to human problems.