Presumably, in the same way that any other tax evasion will. Does the police force, military, court system, fire brigade etc. enslave people?
Because there is no difference between public safety and public health? I would disagree. I think that the purpose of government is to secure inherent rights. (No, health care isn't an inherent right - it's a good). The police force does things I don't like, but its primary purpose is to protect people's life, liberty, and property from being impinged by others. Same thing for the court system (when it works properly). The fire brigade around here is all volunteer - it's not some giant faceless bureaucracy run from DC. And when they come around asking for donations I give generously.
This bill compels the purchase of health insurance. That's tyranny, because it will impose prison for not participating in an industry run by corporations, or some optional governmental bureaucracy run like a corporation. It's corporatism in its worst fascist form.
That's because the AMA has lobbied for (and received) federal rules that allow them to set the number of doctors (that is, to ration doctors) in order to keep salaries high. So the AMA and government has colluded to cause at least 1 factor in the rising costs of health care.
The AMA, BTW, is also supporting this health care bill. We should be skeptical about why, rather than just cheering "WooHoo! I'm getting my free health care!"
What most people are missing in all these Health Care and cap-n-trade measures is that they will significantly impair the ability of people to start businesses, and for small businesses to compete with larger ones. If you're opposed to corporatism, you should oppose these bills in their current form, because they provide benefits to corporations to the detriment of small business and the middle class.
Freedom first. Government by the consent of the governed. Compassion from compassionate people, not from institutions or faceless bureaucrats, which consistently display a lack of compassion.
Your rights do not come from government. Rather, government authority comes from the people.
If you think your rights come from government, then you don't have any - they will take them all away. They are working very hard on doing that right now
When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom.
The "states"? Oh my, and what are those states other than other form of government? They also tax and spend - they aren't at all the bastion of freedom.
Well, those running the Federal government have exposed themselves clearly now as tyrants, as there is no other description for a group of people that would throw people in jail for not buying stuff they want them to buy - no matter what it is.
So far, most state governments have not displayed this level of despotism. And please do not make some bogus claim about auto insurance. It's far different asking somebody to take some responsibility if the want to drive a car on public roads, it's quite another to require participation in some bureaucratic and/or corporate scheme because you are alive.
You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.
Where did you get this twisted idea? That was the entire POINT of the Constitution - to limit the powers of Federal. The 10th amendment was added to point that out.
The "General Welfare" clause is NOT applied to "the people" - the people look out for their own welfare. The "General Welfare" clause authorizes Congress to ensure the welfare of the country. And adding new entitlements to a $1.4 trillion deficit, $12 trillion of debt, and $34 trillion of unfunded liabilities is the OPPOSITE of anything good for the welfare of the country.
I rely on me to provide for me. Government isn't about compassion either. It's about control. We've pretty much abandoned the intent of the constitution. The federals were never supposed to have this much power. I think it's time for the States to step up and take some of this power away from them.
Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.
Well thank god for our compassionate government and armed bureaucracies, which will now be able to jail people for 5 years for failure to buy health insurance.
Not a drupal module, but you may want to check out Zenphoto. I don't know why it's not much more popular than it is. It's easy to set up, very customizable, and very simple for end-users to work with.
Re:a FOSS project that requires extensive hacking
on
Drupal Multimedia
·
· Score: 1
I would argue that it only requires hacks if you wish to make it unique, or do something not provided by available modules. I've worked with Drupal for over 3 years and it rarely requires "hacks" once you know your way around. Sharepoint on the other hand is a proprietary and commercial rabbit hole that will cost you some serious bucks once you need to customize it.
Actually, it will cost you some serious bucks right out of the box, if you implement everything a mid-sized org will want. Customizing will cost you plenty of time and a budget that needs 3 levels of approval.
The most commonly used correlation of the Gregorian Calendar and the Maya Calendar is the GMT correlation, after Goodwin, Martinez, Thompson, the main proponents. In this correlation, December 21, 2012 will be the end of the 13th Baktun. The only other correlation used by any but fringe scholars places the end of the 13th Baktun two days later on December 23rd.
Crap! That's my 50th birthday. Starting to look like the Mayans really did predict the end.
"You fool! We were created in our present form by the great nerd in the sky! Shun the non-believer!"
Sounds very much like the scenario in "Saturn's Children". All the humans have died off, and only the sentient artificial servants are left. The weird (well, one of them) is that they all have heard of "Evolution", but view it as some crazy old ancient religion that only the simple-minded would believe.
There is no such a thing as a "circle" of life. Life is not a circle. It is a process of decay.
Only if there's not enough dark matter to bring everything back together and start the whole process over in a few hundred billion years...
Sorry, but I think it's pretty well established that dark energy is beating dark matter and the universe will expand forever.
So, this sustainability argument is bogus. In the long run, the Earth, the Sun, and even the universe is unsustainable. Give it up already. Let's try "progress" instead.
Basically, I'm more frightened by the current administration's plans for "what to do about the Internet" than I am the ISP's plans. Especially when you start finding "dangerous speech" on the Internet, and classifying certain groups as "hate groups" just because you disagree with them. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that the Oath Keepers organization is a is a hate group. What's to prevent the FCC from declaring that "hate speech" is not "legal content", and shutting down access to that site.
Check out my other post with links to HR 3458 and the "Cybersecurity Act". There are lots of plans for deeper and deeper regulation of Internet traffic that, frankly, should be frightening to anyone that wants to keep the networks free from interference.
Marriage is between a man and woman.... anything else can NEVER be called marriage... Period...
Why can't we call it marriage? I do and 48% of Californians agree with me. Ask us again in 2010 and it will be 49%. Ask us in 2012 and it will be 50.1%. Inevitably, Gay Marriage will be recognized as a right and our grandchildren will be shaking their heads that this was really ever a debate.
You're missing the wide-open language that allows the FCC to design a bureaucratic nightmare of federal regulation through these clauses:
‘(c) Commission Action- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall promulgate rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service--
...[several (reasonable) provisions]
There are several other sections that talk about the FCC "promulgating rules necessary..." to do all kinds of enforcement, tracking, checking, etc. etc. If they decide every ISP, Starbucks, and Joe's coffeehouse need a special license (with a annual renewal fee), and that the FCC will need a monitoring device attached to their internal network to watch all the traffic to ensure compliance, well, there's nothing to prevent them from imposing those kinds of rules. You could imagine all kinds of nefarious rules and fine structures, kind of like they descend on a radio station because somebody said "fuck" on the air.
And this, which means EVERYBODY:
(1) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- The term ‘Internet access service’ means a 2-way transmission offered by an Internet access service provider that transmits information between 2 or more points and that has as its primary, but not exclusive, purpose the enabling of data to be sent or received from the Internet.
‘(2) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PROVIDER- The term ‘Internet access service provider’ means a person or entity that operates or resells and controls any facility used to provide an Internet access service directly to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free, and whether provided via wire or radio, except when such service is offered as an incidental component of a noncommunications contractual relationship.
‘(3) USER- The term ‘user’ means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of an Internet access service, takes and utilizes Internet access services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.
And this, which allows the FCC to pretty much do whatever they want:
‘(4) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT- The term ‘reasonable network management’ shall be defined by the Commission through regulations.’.
Yes, and where do you live? If you live in a place like LA or NYC (which have higher cost of living and as a result pay way more), then even at $50 / month you're still paying WAY less of your income for internet than people living in the rest of the country paying $25 / month.
My god, man, get a grip. You talk like you think I'm advocating anarchy or something. You sound like one of those morons that thinks people that don't want the Feds running the banks, car companies, and the health care industry should also be opposed to their local community running fire stations and police. What does regulating sewerage have to do with shutting down free discourse on the Internet?
Did you even look at the legislation I pointed out? Why is a government bureaucracy deciding what packets you are allowed to send or receive better than Disney deciding for the smaller sub-set of people that are buying services from them? (The answer is - it's not).
I said I was supportive of Net neutrality, but not what it has morphed into, which is more akin to a complete government take-over of the Internet, its access points, and its content. This is the start of the "Internet access card" that you're required to have to get on the Internet, and decides what you can access and the fees you'll pay for it.
I generally support a more libertarian (small 'l') view of government intervention - less is more. But the ideas of 'Net Neutrality, when it was being proposed, seemed to me to be one of those "necessary evil" things that government needs to do. Much of that has to do with the current landscape of Internet providers, where in most places it's a monopoly or near-monopoly of 1 or 2 providers. (What government policies, or lack there of, encouraged or allowed that situation to unfold is up for debate).
But this seemed reasonable. Internet access is now part of our critical infrastructure. Allow ISPs to shape traffic, sure, but provide some rules to prevent them from discriminating based on content, providers, applications, or end-points. All very reasonable. If ISPs want to get in the content business, fine, but don't allow them an advantage over other providers.
That is, I used to be all for it. But now I'm nervous. I want the Internet to be free from interference - that's the goal. But I'm afraid the administration wants more than just to keep ISPs from interfering - they want to take control themselves. They've already started creating rules for bloggers. Sure, they are reasonable rules that almost everyone can agree are useful. This time. And I'm not a blogger that accepts gifts, so I didn't speak up. Then there's the Cybersecurity Act, which seems reasonable on the surface, but is also pretty far-reaching, and could be interpreted to give some Federal bureaucracies some pretty onerous powers. You know, kind of like that Patriot Act that's about to be extended.
And then there's this HR 3458, which goes way beyond what we have traditionally supported for 'Net Neutrality. It's a big, new licensing regime putting the government thumb on every ISP, large or small, and regulating everything they do - it'll be like starting a new TV station if you want to offer Internet access.
So I have to re-think my stance on this. Maybe we're better off with what we have right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably, in the same way that any other tax evasion will. Does the police force, military, court system, fire brigade etc. enslave people?
Because there is no difference between public safety and public health? I would disagree. I think that the purpose of government is to secure inherent rights. (No, health care isn't an inherent right - it's a good). The police force does things I don't like, but its primary purpose is to protect people's life, liberty, and property from being impinged by others. Same thing for the court system (when it works properly). The fire brigade around here is all volunteer - it's not some giant faceless bureaucracy run from DC. And when they come around asking for donations I give generously.
This bill compels the purchase of health insurance. That's tyranny, because it will impose prison for not participating in an industry run by corporations, or some optional governmental bureaucracy run like a corporation. It's corporatism in its worst fascist form.
That's because the AMA has lobbied for (and received) federal rules that allow them to set the number of doctors (that is, to ration doctors) in order to keep salaries high. So the AMA and government has colluded to cause at least 1 factor in the rising costs of health care.
The AMA, BTW, is also supporting this health care bill. We should be skeptical about why, rather than just cheering "WooHoo! I'm getting my free health care!"
What most people are missing in all these Health Care and cap-n-trade measures is that they will significantly impair the ability of people to start businesses, and for small businesses to compete with larger ones. If you're opposed to corporatism, you should oppose these bills in their current form, because they provide benefits to corporations to the detriment of small business and the middle class.
Same old bullshit from the left-right.
Freedom first. Government by the consent of the governed. Compassion from compassionate people, not from institutions or faceless bureaucrats, which consistently display a lack of compassion.
Your rights do not come from government. Rather, government authority comes from the people.
If you think your rights come from government, then you don't have any - they will take them all away. They are working very hard on doing that right now
When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom.
Wow! So... let me get this straight: You are now advocating the following as "basic human rights":
That's going to cost a bundle. I wonder how high the deficit can go before the entire economy collapses.
What will happen to all those people in jail for not buying health insurance when the prisons can't afford to feed them?
The "states"? Oh my, and what are those states other than other form of government? They also tax and spend - they aren't at all the bastion of freedom.
Well, those running the Federal government have exposed themselves clearly now as tyrants, as there is no other description for a group of people that would throw people in jail for not buying stuff they want them to buy - no matter what it is.
So far, most state governments have not displayed this level of despotism. And please do not make some bogus claim about auto insurance. It's far different asking somebody to take some responsibility if the want to drive a car on public roads, it's quite another to require participation in some bureaucratic and/or corporate scheme because you are alive.
You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.
Where did you get this twisted idea? That was the entire POINT of the Constitution - to limit the powers of Federal. The 10th amendment was added to point that out.
The "General Welfare" clause is NOT applied to "the people" - the people look out for their own welfare. The "General Welfare" clause authorizes Congress to ensure the welfare of the country. And adding new entitlements to a $1.4 trillion deficit, $12 trillion of debt, and $34 trillion of unfunded liabilities is the OPPOSITE of anything good for the welfare of the country.
I rely on me to provide for me. Government isn't about compassion either. It's about control. We've pretty much abandoned the intent of the constitution. The federals were never supposed to have this much power. I think it's time for the States to step up and take some of this power away from them.
That effort has already begun.
Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.
Well thank god for our compassionate government and armed bureaucracies, which will now be able to jail people for 5 years for failure to buy health insurance.
ExpressionEngine? Is that supposed to be a joke?
Not a drupal module, but you may want to check out Zenphoto. I don't know why it's not much more popular than it is. It's easy to set up, very customizable, and very simple for end-users to work with.
I would argue that it only requires hacks if you wish to make it unique, or do something not provided by available modules. I've worked with Drupal for over 3 years and it rarely requires "hacks" once you know your way around. Sharepoint on the other hand is a proprietary and commercial rabbit hole that will cost you some serious bucks once you need to customize it.
Actually, it will cost you some serious bucks right out of the box, if you implement everything a mid-sized org will want. Customizing will cost you plenty of time and a budget that needs 3 levels of approval.
The most commonly used correlation of the Gregorian Calendar and the Maya Calendar is the GMT correlation, after Goodwin, Martinez, Thompson, the main proponents. In this correlation, December 21, 2012 will be the end of the 13th Baktun. The only other correlation used by any but fringe scholars places the end of the 13th Baktun two days later on December 23rd.
Crap! That's my 50th birthday. Starting to look like the Mayans really did predict the end.
"You fool! We were created in our present form by the great nerd in the sky! Shun the non-believer!"
Sounds very much like the scenario in "Saturn's Children". All the humans have died off, and only the sentient artificial servants are left. The weird (well, one of them) is that they all have heard of "Evolution", but view it as some crazy old ancient religion that only the simple-minded would believe.
Only if there's not enough dark matter to bring everything back together and start the whole process over in a few hundred billion years ...
Sorry, but I think it's pretty well established that dark energy is beating dark matter and the universe will expand forever.
So, this sustainability argument is bogus. In the long run, the Earth, the Sun, and even the universe is unsustainable. Give it up already. Let's try "progress" instead.
I commented on this before.
Basically, I'm more frightened by the current administration's plans for "what to do about the Internet" than I am the ISP's plans. Especially when you start finding "dangerous speech" on the Internet, and classifying certain groups as "hate groups" just because you disagree with them. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that the Oath Keepers organization is a is a hate group. What's to prevent the FCC from declaring that "hate speech" is not "legal content", and shutting down access to that site.
Check out my other post with links to HR 3458 and the "Cybersecurity Act". There are lots of plans for deeper and deeper regulation of Internet traffic that, frankly, should be frightening to anyone that wants to keep the networks free from interference.
Marriage is between a man and woman.... anything else can NEVER be called marriage... Period...
Why can't we call it marriage? I do and 48% of Californians agree with me. Ask us again in 2010 and it will be 49%. Ask us in 2012 and it will be 50.1%. Inevitably, Gay Marriage will be recognized as a right and our grandchildren will be shaking their heads that this was really ever a debate.
What grandchildren?
You're missing the wide-open language that allows the FCC to design a bureaucratic nightmare of federal regulation through these clauses:
There are several other sections that talk about the FCC "promulgating rules necessary..." to do all kinds of enforcement, tracking, checking, etc. etc. If they decide every ISP, Starbucks, and Joe's coffeehouse need a special license (with a annual renewal fee), and that the FCC will need a monitoring device attached to their internal network to watch all the traffic to ensure compliance, well, there's nothing to prevent them from imposing those kinds of rules. You could imagine all kinds of nefarious rules and fine structures, kind of like they descend on a radio station because somebody said "fuck" on the air.
And this, which means EVERYBODY:
And this, which allows the FCC to pretty much do whatever they want:
In the New Internettm, this type of dissent will be a bug, and will cause your Access license to be quickly revoked.
Wow talk about kismet. That song came around on the iPod the same time I came across this post. How weird is that?
Yes, and where do you live? If you live in a place like LA or NYC (which have higher cost of living and as a result pay way more), then even at $50 / month you're still paying WAY less of your income for internet than people living in the rest of the country paying $25 / month.
Nope. Virginia.
Where do you get prices like that? Where I live I have a choice of either paying $50/mo, or paying $50/mo.
My god, man, get a grip. You talk like you think I'm advocating anarchy or something. You sound like one of those morons that thinks people that don't want the Feds running the banks, car companies, and the health care industry should also be opposed to their local community running fire stations and police. What does regulating sewerage have to do with shutting down free discourse on the Internet?
Did you even look at the legislation I pointed out? Why is a government bureaucracy deciding what packets you are allowed to send or receive better than Disney deciding for the smaller sub-set of people that are buying services from them? (The answer is - it's not).
I said I was supportive of Net neutrality, but not what it has morphed into, which is more akin to a complete government take-over of the Internet, its access points, and its content. This is the start of the "Internet access card" that you're required to have to get on the Internet, and decides what you can access and the fees you'll pay for it.
I generally support a more libertarian (small 'l') view of government intervention - less is more. But the ideas of 'Net Neutrality, when it was being proposed, seemed to me to be one of those "necessary evil" things that government needs to do. Much of that has to do with the current landscape of Internet providers, where in most places it's a monopoly or near-monopoly of 1 or 2 providers. (What government policies, or lack there of, encouraged or allowed that situation to unfold is up for debate).
But this seemed reasonable. Internet access is now part of our critical infrastructure. Allow ISPs to shape traffic, sure, but provide some rules to prevent them from discriminating based on content, providers, applications, or end-points. All very reasonable. If ISPs want to get in the content business, fine, but don't allow them an advantage over other providers.
That is, I used to be all for it. But now I'm nervous. I want the Internet to be free from interference - that's the goal. But I'm afraid the administration wants more than just to keep ISPs from interfering - they want to take control themselves. They've already started creating rules for bloggers. Sure, they are reasonable rules that almost everyone can agree are useful. This time. And I'm not a blogger that accepts gifts, so I didn't speak up. Then there's the Cybersecurity Act, which seems reasonable on the surface, but is also pretty far-reaching, and could be interpreted to give some Federal bureaucracies some pretty onerous powers. You know, kind of like that Patriot Act that's about to be extended.
And then there's this HR 3458, which goes way beyond what we have traditionally supported for 'Net Neutrality. It's a big, new licensing regime putting the government thumb on every ISP, large or small, and regulating everything they do - it'll be like starting a new TV station if you want to offer Internet access.
So I have to re-think my stance on this. Maybe we're better off with what we have right now.
I'm sure that, as usual, it will be the taxpayers picking up the tab. Hopefully the final result will work out better than Grove Parc Plaza, at least.