That is the whole purpose of the Constitution. There are certain things that even the vote of a majority is not allowed to do, such as deprive others of their right to express ideas, even if the majority find them repugnant.
If only they'd had the foresight to extend it to disallowing the majority to vote to pilfer the property of others, but I digress...
Not to mention the fraud and abuse involved with H1B would put Solyndra and "Fast and Furious" to shame. I once worked at a company that started bringing in H1B's.
They are required to CLAIM that they are paying prevailing market wages to the H1B employee. They never do. One guy they brought in, they claimed was being paid $50K/year. He was actually making less than half that.
Who could he complain to? He'd be deported if he did. This paperwork is NEVER audited by government either.
The biggest reform we need (besides the slave wage H1B) is that we need to start considering the labor and environmental regulations of countries that products are imported from and labor is offshore to.
It is unfair for American business and industry to have the competitive DISADVANTAGE of our environmental and labor laws while products and services produced in places where producers can belch black smoke at will and pay far below American market rates for labor can be freely imported. There should be tariffs imposed that balance the playing field, so that American based companies have a level playing field... IN OUR OWN MARKET.
It's a threat that will eventually bring down every company that does it. It is a cheat, a dodge used to avoid paying market rate for wages while still depending on the market you are taking the jobs away from to remain strong enough to buy your product (which is likely too expensive to sell in the off shore market where you are underpaying for labor).
Ergo: Every company that uses offshoring depends on EVERYONE ELSE to not do the same so that there is still a market for their product. Eventually everyone will offshore in order to not get undercut in price, to the point where Americans no longer make a wage sufficient to keep the economy afloat so that there is sufficient money in the economy to allow the purchase of the offshored product.
In other words, it's ultimately a self-destructive strategy that will end in dragging down first world markets to third world economic levels. We may already be past that critical point, looking at the perpetual recession we are in.
LOL. Moderated down by a Facebook lemming in denial no doubt. Go get your personal identity stolen. Go get your computer infected by a virus. The only thing Zuckerberg cares about is making as much money as he can off your information. Which is why he doesn't give a damn about security or keeping viruses off their web pages.
Facebook is a website I refuse to have any relationship with. I do not have an account, nor will I EVER have an account. Their management is easily the most evil and anti-customer in the industry, constantly taking actions against their user's best interest.
This should surprise no one. I block their cookies in my browser and never intentionally go there.
I keep trying to tell the lemmings I know who pour their intimate personal information into Facebook that it is foolish to do so. The website's name should be "InfectMyPCWithAVirus.COM", or "StealMyIdentity.COM".
Zuckerberg better sell the damn thing before the inevitable class action lawsuit consumes the millions he's made off exploiting his customers. Of course, I hope he doesn't, he is one asshole I would very much love to see bankrupted and forced to get an honest job somewhere. I bet he ends up at Sony, developing rootkits...
I've not bought a Ubisoft game since they introduced this DRM, despite the fact that they've released some that I wanted to get.
I think it's time for a new kind of boycott: Not only not buy games from companies that do this, but go out of my way to get the DRM free pirated version.
Simple. Follow the money. Look for people with George Soros ties or other ties to the current thugocracy in Washington.
They wouldn't be so blatant about it if they didn't think they could pull it off: pay us off or you won't get government work because we have "friends".
Ex government employees should be barred from lobbying for at least 10 years.
Statements like this by gigantic Federal bureaucracies always leads to some move against freedom.
They will look to either restrict the ability of the internet to report news (which the government would love, the ruling democrat establishment would love nothing more than to shut down Andrew Britebart and Matt Drudge amongst others). Or they will be after confiscatory taxes on the internet, on news sites, on bloggers, to subsidize "local" news.
As others have said in this story, the lack of support for local news couldn't have anything to do with the fact that businesses aren't local anymore like they were 50 years ago... 50 years ago every town had more than one newspaper. Every radio station had a full airstaff AND a news department. Why? Because local advertisers PAID for this.
The FCC realizes that it's reason for existence (over the air radio and TV) is coming to an end because it's being overtaken by internet broadcasting. They also realize that the chink in the 1st Amendment that was created for them in 1934, the fact that radio spectrum has limits, ie, there is scarcity, which paved the way for the Feds to decide who could broadcast and who couldn't, is mooted by the fact that the Internet has NO LIMIT of channels.
So they have to invent some other form of "scarcity" to give them some toehold on the Internet.
I am so glad I was born in the 70's and graduated in the early 90's. There is no way I could have made it through the fascist regime that is modern government education.
They do. You can't have simultaneous streams running. Which means one Netflix account cannot be shared by two people who are watching things at the same time.
Bad. Chris "Countrywide" Dodd was one of the most corrupt members of the Senate, which is why he quit rather than be defeated last November. He took sweetheart loan deals from Countrywide in exchange for NOT regulating their out of control bogus mortgages, helping create the housing bubble which led to the Great Recession.
But then I guess a corrupt cartel like the MPAA needs someone who knows corruption to lead it.
Mass murder of PEOPLE is good for the environment.
Given that they are praising Genghis Kahn for his massive depopulation of all the areas his conquering and murdering army drove through, what's next? Hitler, Stalin, and Mao praised for their "green" contribution?
Is this why leftists have never met a murdering dictator they didn't like, because killing lots of people is good for the environment?
Sorry, I put a higher value on human life than I do trees.
So, because the wires cross a public street owned by my subdivision or city, that gives the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (which owns neither) the right to control it?
Expanding your argument that means that the Feds can regulate or legislate anything without regard to the Constitution because most people have to use roads or streets to get anywhere.
There really is no such thing as "the internet" really, it's nothing more than a set of standard protocols and methods that tie a whole bunch of private networks together. That's what the internet is, a whole bunch of interconnected PRIVATE networks.
Arguing that the government can tell the owner of one particular network what traffic they must allow also means arguing they can tell them what to BLOCK. "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than a thin end of the wedge Trojan Horse to get the Feds to the Holy Grail of Internet CONTROL they've been seeking (and being denied) since the mid 90's. All their earlier attempts were unanimously opposed by we, the geeks because they were overtly trying to control content (the Exxon law, the Communications "decency" Act, COPA, and others).
"Neutrality" is really the same thing, just more cleverly worded and disguised to divide us by making BitTorrent users think that the Feds are stepping in benevolently to stop Comcast or other providers from throttling stuff like that.
If you give the Feds that authority (which they do not have, the Constitution is clear that they cannot interfere with private property) you are also giving them ultimately the authority to BLOCK websites, etc. The Obama Regime has already shown it's authoritarian bent with the already scary "internet kill switch" power. History shows that any power that can be abused WILL be abused (see the PATRIOT Act which we were told was meant only for the terrorists which is now being used to pursue mostly non terror related "crimes").
I am Catholic. When the Church speaks on scripture, it has authority. When it speaks of that which has nothing to do with the bible, as in net "neutrality" (really nothing more than Government control over private networks, there is nothing neutral about it) or "man made global warming" the Church has no authority whatsoever.
Advocacy of "net neutrality" and "man made global warming" both lead to similar ends: the confiscation of private property directly (by taking it over) or indirectly (by telling you what you can't do with it via regulation), which I can argue violates one of the foudnations of Judeo Christian morality, the 10 Commandments, specifically "thou shalt not steal". There is no difference morally between robbing your neighbor directly and in voting for politicians to do it for you.
This is why you shouldn't go into software development in the first place. If they aren't looking to replace you with an entry level college kid they can burn out at 80 hours a week, they are looking to send your job to India or some other Turd World country.
Depends on the judge. So many of them these days rule based on personal political agenda, the law be dammed, especially in the Federal ranks where they are de facto unaccountable since only Congress can remove them from their appointed for life job.
It wouldn't surprise me if the MAFIAA have slipped some activist judicial appointees into the mix.
What needs to happen, honestly, is the removal of a lot of the extraconstitutional power FROM the judiciary that it has accumulated by self proclaimed fiat over the years. Indeed, if a judge were to rule for Righthaven when their case against individual commentators clearly would constitute government violation of the First Amendment, that judge should be ignored.
We aren't a nation of kings and peasants, and judges are not lords.
It's a rotting cesspool of depravity, where bottom feeders prey upon the users (ie: Zynga games) and where the master (Facebook itself) is constantly shifting the ground around and NEVER to the user's benefit.
I've never used Facebook and I never will. They won't be able to give out my information to the highest bidder because they don't HAVE it in the first place.
I wasn't saying that Slashdot didn't condemn the DMCA. I was here, I was complaining too. What I was saying is that Slashdot gives liberal democrats a pass for such atrocities when they do them while demonizing republicans (such as Bush). Also, most slashdotters seem to fail to realize that the democrats are more likely than republicans to try to regulate or control the Internet and that they are also FAR more in the pockets of the MAFIAA as they are major campaign fund sources for them. I dont' give the republicans a pass on their part of ANY of this, and while Obama is clearly trying to take over the Internet, slashdot automatically moderates anyone criticizing him for doing so to -5.
I've probably lost half my karma score since 2009 simply for having the same criticism for the Obama Regime here as I did Bush's.
Slashdot is extremely hypocritical on stories like this. It only took any mention of the very un patriotic PATRIOT act to get 500 posts railing about how evil and fascist BushHitler was. Though I am a conservative and a Republican I was (and still am) amongst those who believe that law was a thousand page abomination against the Constitution, and said so here. Liberals seem to have a lot bigger problem than conservatives do criticizing "their guy" when he engages in anti freedom behavior that they constantly go to sites like this to rail against.
If electing liberal democrats was supposed to be the solution to constant government attempts to control and squelch the Internet why is it that the majority of the worst ideas seem to come from democrat administrations? It was Bill Clinton who signed into law the DMCA, the communications "decency" act, COPA amongst many failed attempts by an administration that was embarrassed by the Internet (no one would have ever known about Monica Lewinsky had it not been for Matt Drudge and the Internet) to get some wedge of control into it.
Now, I know Bush wasn't exactly a paragon of liberty and freedom, but I don't recall similar thrusts during his 8 years.
Now we have the Obama Regime which isn't even going through the motions of getting his Internet power grab through Congress (though the recent democrat Congress did manage to give him the Internet "kill switch" authority before being voted OUT in record numbers), and is acting through a proxy, an unelected crony who is the head of the FCC, which has recently declared itself master of the Internet. This despite warnings from Congress (which created the FCC) and one court ruling telling them NO, you don't have this authority, they are pressing ahead anyway, telling owners of PRIVATE NETWORKS how they must run them.
Add to this, a proposal for an "optional" (yeah right) national internet ID, which will of course be secure because the government is well known for competence and efficiency (the only competent government operation is the military). This ID if it ever comes to fruition (and it won't, there will be pitchforks and torches surrounding the White House before this would be allowed to happen) will, like everything else, be perverted into the worst possible abuse almost immediately.
You see, like the Clinton Regime, Obama has found the Internet to be a thorn in his side. The "new media" is more powerful than ever, making it impossible for his fellow travelers in the left wing "mainstream" media to alter reality for him. You wanna bet that Obama won't go after his critics? He already IS doing so, go read up on the airline pilot who dared speak up about the bullshit TSA practices and their utter incompetence and how quickly goons from the Regime stormed his home and seized his firearms and computers.
This administration even buys search results on GOOGLE for crying out loud, to make their propaganda on the health care boondoggle the first thing you see...
Tell me they won't abuse a national Internet ID...
No you cannot regulate the Internet. No you cannot create national Internet ID, so you can identify and intimidate your critics.
You cannot do these things because the courts have already said you can't and the new Congress is acting to prevent you from trying. Not that this will stop him good fascist Soros sockpuppet he is. 2012 will though.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the whole purpose of the Constitution. There are certain things that even the vote of a majority is not allowed to do, such as deprive others of their right to express ideas, even if the majority find them repugnant.
If only they'd had the foresight to extend it to disallowing the majority to vote to pilfer the property of others, but I digress...
By a sniper rifle.
This man and his cohorts are enemies of the United States and should be treated accordingly.
Not to mention the fraud and abuse involved with H1B would put Solyndra and "Fast and Furious" to shame. I once worked at a company that started bringing in H1B's.
They are required to CLAIM that they are paying prevailing market wages to the H1B employee. They never do. One guy they brought in, they claimed was being paid $50K/year. He was actually making less than half that.
Who could he complain to? He'd be deported if he did. This paperwork is NEVER audited by government either.
The biggest reform we need (besides the slave wage H1B) is that we need to start considering the labor and environmental regulations of countries that products are imported from and labor is offshore to.
It is unfair for American business and industry to have the competitive DISADVANTAGE of our environmental and labor laws while products and services produced in places where producers can belch black smoke at will and pay far below American market rates for labor can be freely imported. There should be tariffs imposed that balance the playing field, so that American based companies have a level playing field... IN OUR OWN MARKET.
It's a threat that will eventually bring down every company that does it. It is a cheat, a dodge used to avoid paying market rate for wages while still depending on the market you are taking the jobs away from to remain strong enough to buy your product (which is likely too expensive to sell in the off shore market where you are underpaying for labor).
Ergo: Every company that uses offshoring depends on EVERYONE ELSE to not do the same so that there is still a market for their product. Eventually everyone will offshore in order to not get undercut in price, to the point where Americans no longer make a wage sufficient to keep the economy afloat so that there is sufficient money in the economy to allow the purchase of the offshored product.
In other words, it's ultimately a self-destructive strategy that will end in dragging down first world markets to third world economic levels. We may already be past that critical point, looking at the perpetual recession we are in.
LOL. Moderated down by a Facebook lemming in denial no doubt. Go get your personal identity stolen. Go get your computer infected by a virus. The only thing Zuckerberg cares about is making as much money as he can off your information. Which is why he doesn't give a damn about security or keeping viruses off their web pages.
Facebook is a website I refuse to have any relationship with. I do not have an account, nor will I EVER have an account. Their management is easily the most evil and anti-customer in the industry, constantly taking actions against their user's best interest.
This should surprise no one. I block their cookies in my browser and never intentionally go there.
I keep trying to tell the lemmings I know who pour their intimate personal information into Facebook that it is foolish to do so. The website's name should be "InfectMyPCWithAVirus.COM", or "StealMyIdentity.COM".
Zuckerberg better sell the damn thing before the inevitable class action lawsuit consumes the millions he's made off exploiting his customers. Of course, I hope he doesn't, he is one asshole I would very much love to see bankrupted and forced to get an honest job somewhere. I bet he ends up at Sony, developing rootkits...
I've not bought a Ubisoft game since they introduced this DRM, despite the fact that they've released some that I wanted to get.
I think it's time for a new kind of boycott: Not only not buy games from companies that do this, but go out of my way to get the DRM free pirated version.
Simple. Follow the money. Look for people with George Soros ties or other ties to the current thugocracy in Washington.
They wouldn't be so blatant about it if they didn't think they could pull it off: pay us off or you won't get government work because we have "friends".
Ex government employees should be barred from lobbying for at least 10 years.
Statements like this by gigantic Federal bureaucracies always leads to some move against freedom.
They will look to either restrict the ability of the internet to report news (which the government would love, the ruling democrat establishment would love nothing more than to shut down Andrew Britebart and Matt Drudge amongst others). Or they will be after confiscatory taxes on the internet, on news sites, on bloggers, to subsidize "local" news.
As others have said in this story, the lack of support for local news couldn't have anything to do with the fact that businesses aren't local anymore like they were 50 years ago... 50 years ago every town had more than one newspaper. Every radio station had a full airstaff AND a news department. Why? Because local advertisers PAID for this.
The FCC realizes that it's reason for existence (over the air radio and TV) is coming to an end because it's being overtaken by internet broadcasting. They also realize that the chink in the 1st Amendment that was created for them in 1934, the fact that radio spectrum has limits, ie, there is scarcity, which paved the way for the Feds to decide who could broadcast and who couldn't, is mooted by the fact that the Internet has NO LIMIT of channels.
So they have to invent some other form of "scarcity" to give them some toehold on the Internet.
I am so glad I was born in the 70's and graduated in the early 90's. There is no way I could have made it through the fascist regime that is modern government education.
They do. You can't have simultaneous streams running. Which means one Netflix account cannot be shared by two people who are watching things at the same time.
Which shows you how greedy the MAFIAA is.
Just because the agreement said that doesn't make the agreement legal.
Bad. Chris "Countrywide" Dodd was one of the most corrupt members of the Senate, which is why he quit rather than be defeated last November. He took sweetheart loan deals from Countrywide in exchange for NOT regulating their out of control bogus mortgages, helping create the housing bubble which led to the Great Recession.
But then I guess a corrupt cartel like the MPAA needs someone who knows corruption to lead it.
Mass murder of PEOPLE is good for the environment.
Given that they are praising Genghis Kahn for his massive depopulation of all the areas his conquering and murdering army drove through, what's next? Hitler, Stalin, and Mao praised for their "green" contribution?
Is this why leftists have never met a murdering dictator they didn't like, because killing lots of people is good for the environment?
Sorry, I put a higher value on human life than I do trees.
So, because the wires cross a public street owned by my subdivision or city, that gives the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (which owns neither) the right to control it?
Expanding your argument that means that the Feds can regulate or legislate anything without regard to the Constitution because most people have to use roads or streets to get anywhere.
The internet is private property.
There really is no such thing as "the internet" really, it's nothing more than a set of standard protocols and methods that tie a whole bunch of private networks together. That's what the internet is, a whole bunch of interconnected PRIVATE networks.
Arguing that the government can tell the owner of one particular network what traffic they must allow also means arguing they can tell them what to BLOCK. "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than a thin end of the wedge Trojan Horse to get the Feds to the Holy Grail of Internet CONTROL they've been seeking (and being denied) since the mid 90's. All their earlier attempts were unanimously opposed by we, the geeks because they were overtly trying to control content (the Exxon law, the Communications "decency" Act, COPA, and others).
"Neutrality" is really the same thing, just more cleverly worded and disguised to divide us by making BitTorrent users think that the Feds are stepping in benevolently to stop Comcast or other providers from throttling stuff like that.
If you give the Feds that authority (which they do not have, the Constitution is clear that they cannot interfere with private property) you are also giving them ultimately the authority to BLOCK websites, etc. The Obama Regime has already shown it's authoritarian bent with the already scary "internet kill switch" power. History shows that any power that can be abused WILL be abused (see the PATRIOT Act which we were told was meant only for the terrorists which is now being used to pursue mostly non terror related "crimes").
A crusade of stupidity.
I am Catholic. When the Church speaks on scripture, it has authority. When it speaks of that which has nothing to do with the bible, as in net "neutrality" (really nothing more than Government control over private networks, there is nothing neutral about it) or "man made global warming" the Church has no authority whatsoever.
Advocacy of "net neutrality" and "man made global warming" both lead to similar ends: the confiscation of private property directly (by taking it over) or indirectly (by telling you what you can't do with it via regulation), which I can argue violates one of the foudnations of Judeo Christian morality, the 10 Commandments, specifically "thou shalt not steal". There is no difference morally between robbing your neighbor directly and in voting for politicians to do it for you.
This is why you shouldn't go into software development in the first place. If they aren't looking to replace you with an entry level college kid they can burn out at 80 hours a week, they are looking to send your job to India or some other Turd World country.
Depends on the judge. So many of them these days rule based on personal political agenda, the law be dammed, especially in the Federal ranks where they are de facto unaccountable since only Congress can remove them from their appointed for life job.
It wouldn't surprise me if the MAFIAA have slipped some activist judicial appointees into the mix.
What needs to happen, honestly, is the removal of a lot of the extraconstitutional power FROM the judiciary that it has accumulated by self proclaimed fiat over the years. Indeed, if a judge were to rule for Righthaven when their case against individual commentators clearly would constitute government violation of the First Amendment, that judge should be ignored.
We aren't a nation of kings and peasants, and judges are not lords.
An individual who seeks to minimize his tax obligations or a government that feels that it is ENTITLED to tax everything that moves?
It's a rotting cesspool of depravity, where bottom feeders prey upon the users (ie: Zynga games) and where the master (Facebook itself) is constantly shifting the ground around and NEVER to the user's benefit.
I've never used Facebook and I never will. They won't be able to give out my information to the highest bidder because they don't HAVE it in the first place.
I wasn't saying that Slashdot didn't condemn the DMCA. I was here, I was complaining too. What I was saying is that Slashdot gives liberal democrats a pass for such atrocities when they do them while demonizing republicans (such as Bush). Also, most slashdotters seem to fail to realize that the democrats are more likely than republicans to try to regulate or control the Internet and that they are also FAR more in the pockets of the MAFIAA as they are major campaign fund sources for them. I dont' give the republicans a pass on their part of ANY of this, and while Obama is clearly trying to take over the Internet, slashdot automatically moderates anyone criticizing him for doing so to -5.
I've probably lost half my karma score since 2009 simply for having the same criticism for the Obama Regime here as I did Bush's.
Slashdot is extremely hypocritical on stories like this. It only took any mention of the very un patriotic PATRIOT act to get 500 posts railing about how evil and fascist BushHitler was. Though I am a conservative and a Republican I was (and still am) amongst those who believe that law was a thousand page abomination against the Constitution, and said so here. Liberals seem to have a lot bigger problem than conservatives do criticizing "their guy" when he engages in anti freedom behavior that they constantly go to sites like this to rail against.
If electing liberal democrats was supposed to be the solution to constant government attempts to control and squelch the Internet why is it that the majority of the worst ideas seem to come from democrat administrations? It was Bill Clinton who signed into law the DMCA, the communications "decency" act, COPA amongst many failed attempts by an administration that was embarrassed by the Internet (no one would have ever known about Monica Lewinsky had it not been for Matt Drudge and the Internet) to get some wedge of control into it.
Now, I know Bush wasn't exactly a paragon of liberty and freedom, but I don't recall similar thrusts during his 8 years.
Now we have the Obama Regime which isn't even going through the motions of getting his Internet power grab through Congress (though the recent democrat Congress did manage to give him the Internet "kill switch" authority before being voted OUT in record numbers), and is acting through a proxy, an unelected crony who is the head of the FCC, which has recently declared itself master of the Internet. This despite warnings from Congress (which created the FCC) and one court ruling telling them NO, you don't have this authority, they are pressing ahead anyway, telling owners of PRIVATE NETWORKS how they must run them.
Add to this, a proposal for an "optional" (yeah right) national internet ID, which will of course be secure because the government is well known for competence and efficiency (the only competent government operation is the military). This ID if it ever comes to fruition (and it won't, there will be pitchforks and torches surrounding the White House before this would be allowed to happen) will, like everything else, be perverted into the worst possible abuse almost immediately.
You see, like the Clinton Regime, Obama has found the Internet to be a thorn in his side. The "new media" is more powerful than ever, making it impossible for his fellow travelers in the left wing "mainstream" media to alter reality for him. You wanna bet that Obama won't go after his critics? He already IS doing so, go read up on the airline pilot who dared speak up about the bullshit TSA practices and their utter incompetence and how quickly goons from the Regime stormed his home and seized his firearms and computers.
This administration even buys search results on GOOGLE for crying out loud, to make their propaganda on the health care boondoggle the first thing you see...
Tell me they won't abuse a national Internet ID...
Get used to that word.
No you cannot regulate the Internet. No you cannot create national Internet ID, so you can identify and intimidate your critics.
You cannot do these things because the courts have already said you can't and the new Congress is acting to prevent you from trying.
Not that this will stop him good fascist Soros sockpuppet he is. 2012 will though.