Remember, the drop in the economy, unwillingness of the state governments to cut back on politically expedient expeditures (whether for the people as a whole or just the ones who finance the campaigns of current officeholders), and the laws passed immediately following 09/11 are putting the crunch on states. State governments are forced to pay for things like more security at airports, transit stations, etc. Kentucky is not releasing 600 prisoners because they feel generous. Federal laws are mandating implementations that states would have had difficulty funding before 09/11, but now states are stretched to the breaking point to do so. Federal fiscal responsibility is at an all-time low under the Bush administration, thus they have no money to spare and are using their resources to beg for what little cash may prove available to rebuild Iraq.
Sales taxes are one of the primary means of state government fundraising. In such a crunch time, they justifiably fear losing much of "their" income to retailers and possibly looking at struggling brick-and-mortar businesses disappear because someone can sell the same product for less while still making a profit because they can avoid sales tax. Thus the revenue lost is two-fold: tax from the item itself and from property, purchase, and income from any and all businesses that fail as a result of interstate competitors. In a free market this is just how life works, but this country is a regulated capitalist system, hence why MS can be prosecuted on anti-trust charges and slowed from trying to monopolize multiple Internet markets. How can we solve the problem?
The logical solution IMO would be to have the sales tax of the state in which the vendor is located applied to the item if purchased domestically and the sales tax of the state of the recipient applied if the items was purchased internationally. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to actually implement a (potentially) workable sales tax on internet items?
No one likes telemarketers, especially the ones who do not get the hint when you tell them you want nothing they have to offer. A ban or do-not-call list proved a welcomed and very popular piece of legislature, but it may not be legal. Just because the judge's decision is unpopular does not mean it is the wrong one. After all, the telemarketers would not be in that business if there was not a market.
Many of the slashdotters I read seem to have similar political beliefs to myself: government power should be kept to a minimum by preventing it from expanding and rolling it back in many areas. Our government operates on precedent, with any decision on law becoming potential justification for future laws. This do-not-call list does interfere with state-to-state commerce and does set significant precedent for federal regulation of telecommunications-based commerce. The possibility exists that the same precedent in this case could be used for ill or favor in the upcoming challenges of the California spam law, and all eyes are focused on this judge and any rulings this case may generate.
The short-term results are easily seen and criticized. No one wants intrusive telemarketers calling their homes with products they do not want. Until a grass-roots campaign removes this particular market telemarketers will still exist, but they have a legitimate right to protest if they feel their rights as a business are threatened. Let us hope that the court sets a wise precedent and that the telemarketers lose in such a way that does not potentially threaten the rights of anyone in the process.
Homeland Security couldn't even say what caused the blackout in New York except that it wasn't terrorism. I, for one, will more likely avoid products with that seal on them instead of running to purchase them.
I hope Microsoft Windows is the first product to get certified since I find that it and Homeland Security have quite a bit in common (including the facts that neither does its advertised job and both hold enough power to quash anything that gets in their way)
One of the few things that most nations around the world agree on is that kidddie porn is a vile abomination of deviant human sexuality. No one blames the state of Pennsylvania for doing everything they can to craft a law deflecting it. What they need are technical advisors from the computer world and the legal community to write it in such a way that it becomes realistically feasible. Legitimate sites will be blocked in the process and that represents a serious contention with the first amendment. I applaud their intentions and hope they turn to the Linux or Unix communities to try and create the most efficient filter possible (maybe with a cash prize as incentive?). Mandating the presence of such a barrier is troubling because of the precedence that this sets. Remeber that Rick Santorum, a Senator whose religious views are readily expressed on key occasions, is from this state. The possibility exists that establishing a law based on "public morality" or whatever excuse could be used a s precedent to enforce a more narrow interpretation of morality later on down the road. In the future I hope that Pennsylvania will allow ISPs to try this out on a voluntary basis first to make sure it works more effectively and to give parents a notice of which ISPs are doing the most in that area. But as long as the average user remains glaringly ignorant about how the internet works, child porn will remain disturbingly accessible regardless of the barrier in place. This is especially true about legal pron sites which usually disguise themselves as something more legitimate.
As a side note, the RIAA should also not be allowed to infiltrate the Pennsylvania legislature as the vast majority of P2P distributors are not facilitators of kiddie porn distribution despite the current propaganda.
I'm not a lawyer but given that most of our nation acts on "precedence" do the "confessions" of the defendants named in the lawsuits give the RIAA some sort of legal precedence? Y'know, in case someone actually decides to resist their claims? Given that most (all?) of the defendats we have heard form so far have admitted guilt in writing in exchange for a light fine, does this mena maybe they are building up to something larger ot just playing the media game and getting people to settle via legal muscle instead of taking ludicrous claims to trial?
Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...
Laws are a template that should reflect only the most general beliefs of the population in the country in question while being in the most minimal number possible. This does not mean, however, that law and morals will always coincide. Indeed, it is probably better if laws remain minimal and morals fill in the voids and cracks. When our country was established it had a minimal set of laws, no income taxes, and very little debt, which lasted well until the Civil War. Taxes, the number of entities able to collect them, and the number of laws in this country have all increased dramatically over the last 150 years but especially since the end of World War II. So many laws are now on the books that they are starting to seriously contradict themselves, leaving most people at a loss when trying to follow one or the other. Corporations now seek to turn copyrights into property, the RIAA seeks to eliminate internet technologies that threaten their (antiquated) system of product distribution, etc. Our government was founded on the principle that people should have the right to decide for themselves who they do business with and how to live their lives. Who can honestly say that they would not be tempted to perform the same ludicrous actions if they were in the RIAA's position? They are using every tool they can to alter the numerous laws in our government to their favor and keep their business running. If we want to really stpo the RIAA, people in smaller states need to get together and control who they elect to their representative houses and the federal Senate. Someone needs to run on a politically suicidal campaign and at least bring this up in the Senate where they have 6 years to either bring about change or focus enough attention to the issue that others get involved. Most lawmakers are indeed out of touch with the American people, but they get re-(s)elected to their positions because of current campaign finance laws and wealthy contributors. We need to reduce the number of existing laws and ensure that they do not internally contradict themselves if we wish to halt the RIAA's progress against our civil liberties and desire to listen to music on an electronic format.
Media tampering along these lines began long ago, at least as far back as WR Hearst and the "Give me the pictures and I'll give you the war" quote from 1898. Corporate tampering with the government runs back to at least the Bank of the United States and Nicholas Biddle in the 1830s. Now they have combined in the form of a corporate giant wanting to dominate not only the content of information most of this country sees but also its distribution and means of transmission. No one can really blame Microsoft for wanting to act in their own best interest, after all if they win then they likely gain control over most computer systems on the consumer, commercial, and military levels. This means billions of dollars and a monopoly on software that the government will be hard-pressed to crack, both because of the importance of the product and the lobbying money that would result. It is not going to simply hand over its golden goose to open source programmers who can do the job cheaper, better, and more efficiently. Instead it seeks to badmouth its only competition at every turn. Microsoft is free to say what it wants as long as it is prepared to back it up. It is only when the freedom of speech is applied to those whom we do not wish to hear that we truly prove our respect for that freedom.
And the second they say anything they can't outright prove, the same body of laws deems that slander and is grounds for legal action. I hope they slip up with the open source community there to greet them, but until then we *grudgingly* have to respect their rights to free speech, even if that includes lobbying Congress with barrels of cash (since bribery in that form is somehow considered "free speech" under current law).
...could everyone that has recieved a subpoena file similar complaints and delay the RIAA efforts as they have to go state-by-state to clean it up? I have no legal training but the man-hours the lawyers would have to put in would surely cost the RIAA a pretty penny. Anyone know if this would work or not?
Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers. If you ask one the next time one is on the phone, they usually call from another time zone or Canada (if the target is American). Most spammers operate from servers in Canada or small Pacific Rim countries that would prove immune from this law anyway. Note also that most of these sexually explicit e-mails are easily recognized by anyone literate as they tend to accumulate several consonants at the end of the e-mail title that form babble instead of coherent words. I find this an example of people saber-rattling in preparation for re-election campaigns, especially given that several other meaningless "vote-for-me" laws were modified or enacted at the same time. These include:
-no more execution of the mentally retarded (already mandated by the Supreme Court)
-allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"
-increase penalties against drunk drivers who kill or seriously injure people while driving with over a 0.2 blood alcohol level (as if attempted/ murder is not serious enough to get life in prison anyway)
-no credit card company can give out anything of value to students unless they also get a brochure
Some of the new laws make sense, but again there are enough of weird and nonsensical laws that I wonder if such would make it to the legislative table, much less get passed, if not for the election coming up in about a year's time. Until then I await the first case of a spammer getting tried under this law if he/she/it/they are operating from another state or country.
1) If a space program in India allows them to develop hydroponic technology, that would allow more people to be fed and employ thousands of people to make the piping necessary for hydroponic farming (Ever been to Disneyworld? If you've had a salad there, you've eaten hydroponically-grown food)
2) Space programs spend money. That will help alleviate the poverty problem as more people are employed, increase government revenue as other countries expand existing demand or create new contracts to launch their own satellites into orbit, and save some Indian children through advances in medicine and material science (new insights into pharmacology, physiology, and pathophysiology [bad effects on the body caused by space travel share characteristics with other diseases] just to name a few)
3) Spending money on space programs increases our abilities to counter threats from space when they arise. Stray asteroids could wipe out the entire planet, not just the poor of Calcutta. The problem with the poverty-stricken masses in the 3rd world in largely caused by feeding them enough to allow them to have multiple children who end up starving during the next generation. We tried feeding the 2 billion poor of the world after World War II as part of our desire to make allies during the Cold War, now we have 4 billion poor in the same areas who we are being asked to feed instead. Let the Third World take care of itself for a generation so it can establish equilibrium then let us teach them how to take care of themselves instead of just giving them handouts. Having spent time volunteering in one of our nation's busiest public hospitals, I also recommend you take time to fix domestic problems before focusing on international ones. If India chooses space over social programs, that is their business.
"Crimes against Morality" are not the worst things to be dealing with. What about the "war" on drugs? Dallas is easily accessible as a waypoint for drug/contraband trafficking point due to its relative proximity to other majors cities (New Orleans, Houston) and as a transportation hub. Personally I think that if the people who have pron to look at are being distracted from criminal acts, the pron distributors shouldn't be busted at all.
Besides, who determines what "morals" are the norm? I have friends from conservative churches, mosques, and synagogues whose overall values jive somewhat but who strongly disagree over details. Some people think that dancing is too immoral for people to engage in, remember the whole episode with Indianapolis and its mayor over that issue. Some parts of this country still ban the trade of alcohol (southeast KY) and others make possession of it a misdemeanor (parts of southeast alabama) all in the name of "public good". Here in Georgia video poker was banned because it was disrupting the "public good" despite little evidence thatit did anything but make non-taxable income for the state's more remote gas stations and resembled gambling too much for the conservative Christians in state government.
This all seems to be a political distraction from the bigger issues. Why haven't the CEO of Enron or Worldcom been indicted on criminal charges yet? Could the economy be recovering more quickly under different economic policy? Why did we fight a massive war in the middle east only in an oil-rich country but gas prices keep rising?. I find that the more often people take care to focus attention on the details and the little things the more often they fail to pay attention to the big picture. Anyone have any thoughts?
1) Maybe if SCO actually made something linux-based for the mass market worth purchasing they would reap some of those "lost profits" they moan about
2) Linux code should be de-SCOed to prevent this sort of problem from continuing to flair up
3) Would someone please investigate the RIAA to see if they're using any Linux systems? Personally I'd love to see the RIAA and SCO duke it out in court instead of on consumers who have to settle on their terms...
The problem with RIAA anti-piracy enforcement
on
The Effect of Pirated CDs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
In the article it mentions that 1) some of the piracy is coming from major labels copying their rivals CDs (with 2 major RIAA companies having been fined twice), 2) the RIAA is producing 25% fewer CDs than it did even 10 years ago,and 3) most of the money lost by the music industry is being drained by organized crime syndicates, not P-2-P swappers.
Of course the RIAA is afraid and targeting domestic file-swapping. Congressional lobbying/bribing allows them to use their muscle most effectively on their home turf (US Soil). Domestic file-swapping is also a source of revenue drain, just not the primary one. Yet they are afraid because their revenues are down despite having produced fewer units to sell. Their prices are inflated to the point that file-swappers often feel that they are pseudo-Robin Hoods that steal from the rich RIAA and give to themselves and others. The few bad apples who flagrantly do this in violation of copyrights on a large scale "justify" the RIAA "anti-piracy" efforts in the mass media, which the RIAA subunits often hold stock in as well. They have the money and moxie to make the rest of us pay their over-inflated prices while morally justifying it to those people who do not know better.
Meanwhile the international criminals are difficult to track and catch. Thailand may be bulldozing the copies it finds, but I find that the more extreme the public demonstration of enforcing law, the less often it is actually enforced. Thailand, China, and other areas of Southeast and East Asia are the HQ of large-scale piracy. Anyone with friends who visit Hong Kong, Beijing, or Taiwan regularly is likely to have been offered pirate DVDs or CDs of recent movies or music. Even the soundtrack for recent movies are available...often before they leave the theater. Enforcement of copyright in those countries is more difficult, especially since the WTO is reluctant to enforce rules so stringently against the truly huge economies.
Copyright may be an outdated notion according to some, but the RIAA has the money and Congressmen that it deserves watching if only on a civil liberties basis. The DMCA is only one example of how creatvity is stifled for the benefit of copyright holders. Any future moves by the RIAA could be as stringent or worse. I'm not suggesting we appease the dragon that is the RIAA, but instead we keep vigilant watch on where they are actually losing money as this article does. Thus when the RIAA proposes legislation like the DMCA hard evidence can be used to discourage legislators from enacting such laws.
The War of Information
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This is not a new concept: whoever controls information outlets controls what the readers of that content see. Ever wonder why there is a King James Version of the Bible? or a New International version? They started from arguments between groups that eventually resulted in new bibles being printed. The same thing happens with movies and music. Anyone over 40 can give you the name of a song they like that got remade recently and an incident where some kid thought the remake was the original, giving credit to the new artist. Or old TV movies/series that get remade to the same effect.
Every time a new distribution media comes along it is usually controlled easily and readily because startup costs and production tended to be centralized. Publishing companies need printing presses, music and TV need studios, etc. People who want to control the distribution can easily do so by cutting it off or regulating it at the source. Distribution was also easily controlled since transportation cartels tended to be monopolies or oligopolies that would make deals with producers or get taken over by them. Localized distrubitors could be bullied with threats of price wars or bribed with treats of guarenteed monopolies in their area (much as states do with wine distribution contracts these days). Yet the internet is an entirely different entity, in that distributor and publisher have been combined into one and that no one corporation can hope to realistically control even the majority of computer-based infrastructure.
As with any new medium, test cases arise that will set precedent for how to approach this new medium. Companies with the money are bribing Congressional officials to guarentee their copyrights and change the nature of them from honorable, respectable, limited right to an exact piece material into exclusive right to repress any and every idea even remotely based on the original idea for 75-100 years. Innovation has slowed dramatically as a result, and this would decimate engineering and scientific progress if the same ideas ever became law in those fields. Yet now people can readily copy material and distribute (publish) it with the click of a mouse. There's no time to tax it, regulate it, put it through a middleman, or anything else. Copyright laws were changing even before the internet came about, and music oligopolies were exploiting the populace for decades, but now they can be circumvented with ease. This infuriates the companies since fair-market value for their material turns out to be so much lower than their formerly enforcable prices were. Thus, in a backlash, they now want to charge more to "make up for lost profit" and have Draconian copyrights and copyright enforcement laws to protect their material ad infinitum whether it is justifiable or not.
What really makes this tricky is that the infrastructure is diverse and the battlefield is international. Laws are limited only to the country they are made in. Ultimately it would take the UN to write legislation for anything realistic to apply to the entire planet, so the companies are going for the next-best thing: arresting or bankrupting anyone in the US involved in "copyright violation" and trying to force other countries to do the same. They do this by threatening trade sanctions by bemoaning their loss of revenues due to "pirates", legitimate or otherwise, and getting pity from some of the populace. It also helps that these same companies also tend to own TV and news stations as well as many congressmen who rely on those sources to get re-elected.
It will be difficult to fight this war from our end since we lack the resources and congresmen of these giant companies. How do we fight back legally? First, get some like-minded friends together and write your congressmen and see if they won their last election by a thin margin. If they are not solidly rooted in their district, they will very likely listen to what you and your voting friends have to say. Second, if you are not already, get regist
It means "guarded condition", immediately above green ("low threat level") and below yellow ("elevated risk of terror attack"). Personally I find it redundant to have this department since the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DIA should have caught the 09/11 attacks before they happened in the first place. But nevertheless the "blue" level does exist.
Get together the same team building the International Space Station. Japan provides the tech, America the money, Russia the (shoestring budget) design, Ukraine the lifting body, etc. China favors modernizing the Soyuz and going its own way, so more power to them. India does not have a published design on a launch vehicle that I am aware of. If the rest of the advanced nations are to work together on a mars mission and an international space station, let's also work together to standardize the LEO and HEO (high earth orbit) vehicles we use to get there.
No ship of this size should be named after a living person. Doing so cheapens the honor that others experience by having the ships named after them in death. I concur with the previous poster in that regard.
Has no one noticed that initially these ships were named after the greatest military battles in history but that this has shifted to being named for still-living personnel? Lexington, Yorktown, Midway, etc. Where is a Gettysburg? A carrier called Normandy? Why can't we see a Nimitz-class Vicksburg? Or at least a USS Inchon? Because they are now being named for (some naval personnel but mostly Republicans who once were) Presidents.
Reagan was responsible for the modern military as we understand it in the US. His presidency saw the inflation of spending to unprecedented levels. All of which had to pass through mostly Democratic Houses and Senates. Pork-barrel and politically motivated spending by both parties is what caused the massive expansion of debt between 1980-1988, not any one man. The same pork-barrel and politically motivated spending trends are still with us: socialized medicine, drug coverage for medicare, expansion of military spending without a war, etc.
Let me expand on these because they're not entirely obvious. Socialized medicine already exists in many parts of this country, where even the poorest can get complex surgery done and pay only what they can with the local governments covering the rest. Ever wonder where most of your local taxes go if you live in a major city? Schools and medical care for the poor are the two big ones in most places.
Drug coverage for medicare is another. Granted, sometimes name-brand drugs vary greatly from generics, but not very often. Most people asking for a drug these days are influenced by advertising for prescription drugs (allowed first under Reagan in 1987 if I remember right). Ban that, let the docs do their work, and see what happens.
Expansion of the military without a wartime situtation. This is a politically motivated tactic used by both Republicans looking to appease the might-makes-right faction and Democrats who get the parts made and vehicles assembled in their districts. Military suppliers make fortunes off of $700 toilet seats that only fail 1 time in 10 million. Costs could be slashed by integrating the military into one unit but most people won't support that.
This country has a mixed history of people in office, most of whom are either amoral, blatantly corrupt, or both. Recently we have seen many fascists (people who hold the view of strong executive branches running countries via corporate entities) in the executive branch, Ashcroft is the most glaring example but not the only one. No one man can be blamed for our country's ills and anyone, liberal or conservative, who does so is either unwilling to look at the whole record or trying to shift blame from their own party. If anyone would like to challenge that assertion, please provide a reason and documentation, I'd like to know how both sides justify blaming individuals for the faults of a country whose population approaches 0.3 billion.
The more often you have laws against guns, the more often the criminals you encounter will have them and the less likely the innocents will not! Criminals, by definition, are those who break (gun) laws after all...
One, parents should be in charge of their kids, not the government. With more parents off to work, there is less time to ensure that kids have proper guidance and development. This same problem arose during WWII when Dad was at the front or in the factory and Mom was often in the factory too. Latchkey kids spwaning gangs (Zoot Suit Riot, 1943 or 44 in Los Angeles), elevated teen pregnancy rates, runaways, etc. These reports sound familiar to anyone who studies modern urban youth would find the same problems back then. Lack of parenting, whether due to necessity or greed of the parents or whatever else, is the main cause behind the "moral decay" in this country as well as the vast majority of school shootings.
Two, solving the problems by attempting to legislate morality is both ineffective and dangerous. It is ineffective because the dealers are not going to police themselves if demand is high enough and the stores that sell copies under the table or without ID will prosper, potentially putting the rest out of business or causing them to discontinue the product in question altogether. It is dangerous because it sets precedent for allowing a faction of society to dictate its morality on the people who believe that good intentions will result. Remember, one mildly conservative in the Washington State Senate tried to prevent the teaching of evolution on the basis that it conflicted with Declaration of Independence. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/WA/978 _new_antievolution_legislation_1_23_2002.asp)
Thus the potential exists of such a group not only legislating its morality on the rest of the country (Christian Conservatives are trying to do this piece at a time in several states on abortion, science education, etc.) but also to enforce their views in a legal sense*. Note recent laws proposed or passed by AG Ashcroft, Senators Santorum and Representative DeLay et al.
*Democrats are not innocent of this either, but the tend to use "security" and "equality" as their preferred excuses for violating civil liberties.
Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!
The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?
There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?
The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.
If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.
Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it. The current problem is not a conundrum best left to wealthy adventurers because our current obstacle is getting to space, not developing it. As soon as a means becomes available to get to lower Earth orbit for inexpensive sums, space will commercially develop at a break-neck pace, likely in a Wild West fashion.
For some unknown reason, many of us here in the US seem to think that if casualties are possible, it should not be done. This applies to warfare (Look at the furor over the ~100 killed in the recent Iraq skirmish), supersonic aircraft travel (Concorde; didn't stop flying until its one accident in 20 years), space travel (Columbia et. al). Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system prevents everyone else from getting a chance. If the success of the internet were translated to space, the international community would be very leery of one or even a handful of corporation controlling 95% of all space business.
Do we really want to see a potential case of three or four corporations (via wealthy individuals) dominating space? Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth? It is unacceptable to allow a few individuals to set the pace for space exploration exploitation. Instead, I'd rather see either nationally-funded exploration of space or extraordinary tax breaks for companies great and small dedicated to getting into space. Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO, so I figure chemical companies dedicated to polymers and their manufacture of such an elevator should be first in line. Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D and allow the two to combine forces as a driving vehicle of space exploitation. A highly competitive commercial situation for getting to and exploiting space would also drive technology faster than a monopolized or oligopolized situation (look at operating systems). Just my 2c...
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, the drop in the economy, unwillingness of the state governments to cut back on politically expedient expeditures (whether for the people as a whole or just the ones who finance the campaigns of current officeholders), and the laws passed immediately following 09/11 are putting the crunch on states. State governments are forced to pay for things like more security at airports, transit stations, etc. Kentucky is not releasing 600 prisoners because they feel generous. Federal laws are mandating implementations that states would have had difficulty funding before 09/11, but now states are stretched to the breaking point to do so. Federal fiscal responsibility is at an all-time low under the Bush administration, thus they have no money to spare and are using their resources to beg for what little cash may prove available to rebuild Iraq.
Sales taxes are one of the primary means of state government fundraising. In such a crunch time, they justifiably fear losing much of "their" income to retailers and possibly looking at struggling brick-and-mortar businesses disappear because someone can sell the same product for less while still making a profit because they can avoid sales tax. Thus the revenue lost is two-fold: tax from the item itself and from property, purchase, and income from any and all businesses that fail as a result of interstate competitors. In a free market this is just how life works, but this country is a regulated capitalist system, hence why MS can be prosecuted on anti-trust charges and slowed from trying to monopolize multiple Internet markets. How can we solve the problem?
The logical solution IMO would be to have the sales tax of the state in which the vendor is located applied to the item if purchased domestically and the sales tax of the state of the recipient applied if the items was purchased internationally. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to actually implement a (potentially) workable sales tax on internet items?
No one likes telemarketers, especially the ones who do not get the hint when you tell them you want nothing they have to offer. A ban or do-not-call list proved a welcomed and very popular piece of legislature, but it may not be legal. Just because the judge's decision is unpopular does not mean it is the wrong one. After all, the telemarketers would not be in that business if there was not a market.
Many of the slashdotters I read seem to have similar political beliefs to myself: government power should be kept to a minimum by preventing it from expanding and rolling it back in many areas. Our government operates on precedent, with any decision on law becoming potential justification for future laws. This do-not-call list does interfere with state-to-state commerce and does set significant precedent for federal regulation of telecommunications-based commerce. The possibility exists that the same precedent in this case could be used for ill or favor in the upcoming challenges of the California spam law, and all eyes are focused on this judge and any rulings this case may generate.
The short-term results are easily seen and criticized. No one wants intrusive telemarketers calling their homes with products they do not want. Until a grass-roots campaign removes this particular market telemarketers will still exist, but they have a legitimate right to protest if they feel their rights as a business are threatened. Let us hope that the court sets a wise precedent and that the telemarketers lose in such a way that does not potentially threaten the rights of anyone in the process.
Homeland Security couldn't even say what caused the blackout in New York except that it wasn't terrorism. I, for one, will more likely avoid products with that seal on them instead of running to purchase them.
I hope Microsoft Windows is the first product to get certified since I find that it and Homeland Security have quite a bit in common (including the facts that neither does its advertised job and both hold enough power to quash anything that gets in their way)
One of the few things that most nations around the world agree on is that kidddie porn is a vile abomination of deviant human sexuality. No one blames the state of Pennsylvania for doing everything they can to craft a law deflecting it. What they need are technical advisors from the computer world and the legal community to write it in such a way that it becomes realistically feasible. Legitimate sites will be blocked in the process and that represents a serious contention with the first amendment. I applaud their intentions and hope they turn to the Linux or Unix communities to try and create the most efficient filter possible (maybe with a cash prize as incentive?). Mandating the presence of such a barrier is troubling because of the precedence that this sets. Remeber that Rick Santorum, a Senator whose religious views are readily expressed on key occasions, is from this state. The possibility exists that establishing a law based on "public morality" or whatever excuse could be used a s precedent to enforce a more narrow interpretation of morality later on down the road. In the future I hope that Pennsylvania will allow ISPs to try this out on a voluntary basis first to make sure it works more effectively and to give parents a notice of which ISPs are doing the most in that area. But as long as the average user remains glaringly ignorant about how the internet works, child porn will remain disturbingly accessible regardless of the barrier in place. This is especially true about legal pron sites which usually disguise themselves as something more legitimate.
As a side note, the RIAA should also not be allowed to infiltrate the Pennsylvania legislature as the vast majority of P2P distributors are not facilitators of kiddie porn distribution despite the current propaganda.
I'm not a lawyer but given that most of our nation acts on "precedence" do the "confessions" of the defendants named in the lawsuits give the RIAA some sort of legal precedence? Y'know, in case someone actually decides to resist their claims? Given that most (all?) of the defendats we have heard form so far have admitted guilt in writing in exchange for a light fine, does this mena maybe they are building up to something larger ot just playing the media game and getting people to settle via legal muscle instead of taking ludicrous claims to trial?
Oddly enough, this reminds me of Microsoft's old buisness tactics of muscling out other computer software companies...
especially given that her address in section 8 housing means that the RIAA lawyers have so much they can take from her as it is.
Laws are a template that should reflect only the most general beliefs of the population in the country in question while being in the most minimal number possible. This does not mean, however, that law and morals will always coincide. Indeed, it is probably better if laws remain minimal and morals fill in the voids and cracks. When our country was established it had a minimal set of laws, no income taxes, and very little debt, which lasted well until the Civil War. Taxes, the number of entities able to collect them, and the number of laws in this country have all increased dramatically over the last 150 years but especially since the end of World War II. So many laws are now on the books that they are starting to seriously contradict themselves, leaving most people at a loss when trying to follow one or the other. Corporations now seek to turn copyrights into property, the RIAA seeks to eliminate internet technologies that threaten their (antiquated) system of product distribution, etc. Our government was founded on the principle that people should have the right to decide for themselves who they do business with and how to live their lives. Who can honestly say that they would not be tempted to perform the same ludicrous actions if they were in the RIAA's position? They are using every tool they can to alter the numerous laws in our government to their favor and keep their business running. If we want to really stpo the RIAA, people in smaller states need to get together and control who they elect to their representative houses and the federal Senate. Someone needs to run on a politically suicidal campaign and at least bring this up in the Senate where they have 6 years to either bring about change or focus enough attention to the issue that others get involved. Most lawmakers are indeed out of touch with the American people, but they get re-(s)elected to their positions because of current campaign finance laws and wealthy contributors. We need to reduce the number of existing laws and ensure that they do not internally contradict themselves if we wish to halt the RIAA's progress against our civil liberties and desire to listen to music on an electronic format.
Just as long as PETA is a measurement of its power and not an indication of who controls it...
Media tampering along these lines began long ago, at least as far back as WR Hearst and the "Give me the pictures and I'll give you the war" quote from 1898. Corporate tampering with the government runs back to at least the Bank of the United States and Nicholas Biddle in the 1830s. Now they have combined in the form of a corporate giant wanting to dominate not only the content of information most of this country sees but also its distribution and means of transmission. No one can really blame Microsoft for wanting to act in their own best interest, after all if they win then they likely gain control over most computer systems on the consumer, commercial, and military levels. This means billions of dollars and a monopoly on software that the government will be hard-pressed to crack, both because of the importance of the product and the lobbying money that would result. It is not going to simply hand over its golden goose to open source programmers who can do the job cheaper, better, and more efficiently. Instead it seeks to badmouth its only competition at every turn. Microsoft is free to say what it wants as long as it is prepared to back it up. It is only when the freedom of speech is applied to those whom we do not wish to hear that we truly prove our respect for that freedom.
And the second they say anything they can't outright prove, the same body of laws deems that slander and is grounds for legal action. I hope they slip up with the open source community there to greet them, but until then we *grudgingly* have to respect their rights to free speech, even if that includes lobbying Congress with barrels of cash (since bribery in that form is somehow considered "free speech" under current law).
...could everyone that has recieved a subpoena file similar complaints and delay the RIAA efforts as they have to go state-by-state to clean it up? I have no legal training but the man-hours the lawyers would have to put in would surely cost the RIAA a pretty penny. Anyone know if this would work or not?
Most spammers operate out of other countries these days, as do telemarketers. If you ask one the next time one is on the phone, they usually call from another time zone or Canada (if the target is American). Most spammers operate from servers in Canada or small Pacific Rim countries that would prove immune from this law anyway. Note also that most of these sexually explicit e-mails are easily recognized by anyone literate as they tend to accumulate several consonants at the end of the e-mail title that form babble instead of coherent words. I find this an example of people saber-rattling in preparation for re-election campaigns, especially given that several other meaningless "vote-for-me" laws were modified or enacted at the same time. These include:
-no more execution of the mentally retarded (already mandated by the Supreme Court)
-allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"
-increase penalties against drunk drivers who kill or seriously injure people while driving with over a 0.2 blood alcohol level (as if attempted/ murder is not serious enough to get life in prison anyway)
-no credit card company can give out anything of value to students unless they also get a brochure
Some of the new laws make sense, but again there are enough of weird and nonsensical laws that I wonder if such would make it to the legislative table, much less get passed, if not for the election coming up in about a year's time. Until then I await the first case of a spammer getting tried under this law if he/she/it/they are operating from another state or country.
1) If a space program in India allows them to develop hydroponic technology, that would allow more people to be fed and employ thousands of people to make the piping necessary for hydroponic farming (Ever been to Disneyworld? If you've had a salad there, you've eaten hydroponically-grown food)
2) Space programs spend money. That will help alleviate the poverty problem as more people are employed, increase government revenue as other countries expand existing demand or create new contracts to launch their own satellites into orbit, and save some Indian children through advances in medicine and material science (new insights into pharmacology, physiology, and pathophysiology [bad effects on the body caused by space travel share characteristics with other diseases] just to name a few)
3) Spending money on space programs increases our abilities to counter threats from space when they arise. Stray asteroids could wipe out the entire planet, not just the poor of Calcutta. The problem with the poverty-stricken masses in the 3rd world in largely caused by feeding them enough to allow them to have multiple children who end up starving during the next generation. We tried feeding the 2 billion poor of the world after World War II as part of our desire to make allies during the Cold War, now we have 4 billion poor in the same areas who we are being asked to feed instead. Let the Third World take care of itself for a generation so it can establish equilibrium then let us teach them how to take care of themselves instead of just giving them handouts. Having spent time volunteering in one of our nation's busiest public hospitals, I also recommend you take time to fix domestic problems before focusing on international ones. If India chooses space over social programs, that is their business.
They are rumored to start practicing their skills in docking procedures as soon as he gets back.
As long as they're suing everyone who dares use "their" Unix code, who wants to bet that Oracle is the next one they sue?
"Crimes against Morality" are not the worst things to be dealing with. What about the "war" on drugs? Dallas is easily accessible as a waypoint for drug/contraband trafficking point due to its relative proximity to other majors cities (New Orleans, Houston) and as a transportation hub. Personally I think that if the people who have pron to look at are being distracted from criminal acts, the pron distributors shouldn't be busted at all.
Besides, who determines what "morals" are the norm? I have friends from conservative churches, mosques, and synagogues whose overall values jive somewhat but who strongly disagree over details. Some people think that dancing is too immoral for people to engage in, remember the whole episode with Indianapolis and its mayor over that issue. Some parts of this country still ban the trade of alcohol (southeast KY) and others make possession of it a misdemeanor (parts of southeast alabama) all in the name of "public good". Here in Georgia video poker was banned because it was disrupting the "public good" despite little evidence thatit did anything but make non-taxable income for the state's more remote gas stations and resembled gambling too much for the conservative Christians in state government.
This all seems to be a political distraction from the bigger issues. Why haven't the CEO of Enron or Worldcom been indicted on criminal charges yet? Could the economy be recovering more quickly under different economic policy? Why did we fight a massive war in the middle east only in an oil-rich country but gas prices keep rising?. I find that the more often people take care to focus attention on the details and the little things the more often they fail to pay attention to the big picture. Anyone have any thoughts?
1) Maybe if SCO actually made something linux-based for the mass market worth purchasing they would reap some of those "lost profits" they moan about
2) Linux code should be de-SCOed to prevent this sort of problem from continuing to flair up
3) Would someone please investigate the RIAA to see if they're using any Linux systems? Personally I'd love to see the RIAA and SCO duke it out in court instead of on consumers who have to settle on their terms...
In the article it mentions that 1) some of the piracy is coming from major labels copying their rivals CDs (with 2 major RIAA companies having been fined twice), 2) the RIAA is producing 25% fewer CDs than it did even 10 years ago ,and 3) most of the money lost by the music industry is being drained by organized crime syndicates, not P-2-P swappers.
Of course the RIAA is afraid and targeting domestic file-swapping. Congressional lobbying/bribing allows them to use their muscle most effectively on their home turf (US Soil). Domestic file-swapping is also a source of revenue drain, just not the primary one. Yet they are afraid because their revenues are down despite having produced fewer units to sell. Their prices are inflated to the point that file-swappers often feel that they are pseudo-Robin Hoods that steal from the rich RIAA and give to themselves and others. The few bad apples who flagrantly do this in violation of copyrights on a large scale "justify" the RIAA "anti-piracy" efforts in the mass media, which the RIAA subunits often hold stock in as well. They have the money and moxie to make the rest of us pay their over-inflated prices while morally justifying it to those people who do not know better.
Meanwhile the international criminals are difficult to track and catch. Thailand may be bulldozing the copies it finds, but I find that the more extreme the public demonstration of enforcing law, the less often it is actually enforced. Thailand, China, and other areas of Southeast and East Asia are the HQ of large-scale piracy. Anyone with friends who visit Hong Kong, Beijing, or Taiwan regularly is likely to have been offered pirate DVDs or CDs of recent movies or music. Even the soundtrack for recent movies are available...often before they leave the theater. Enforcement of copyright in those countries is more difficult, especially since the WTO is reluctant to enforce rules so stringently against the truly huge economies.
Copyright may be an outdated notion according to some, but the RIAA has the money and Congressmen that it deserves watching if only on a civil liberties basis. The DMCA is only one example of how creatvity is stifled for the benefit of copyright holders. Any future moves by the RIAA could be as stringent or worse. I'm not suggesting we appease the dragon that is the RIAA, but instead we keep vigilant watch on where they are actually losing money as this article does. Thus when the RIAA proposes legislation like the DMCA hard evidence can be used to discourage legislators from enacting such laws.
This is not a new concept: whoever controls information outlets controls what the readers of that content see. Ever wonder why there is a King James Version of the Bible? or a New International version? They started from arguments between groups that eventually resulted in new bibles being printed. The same thing happens with movies and music. Anyone over 40 can give you the name of a song they like that got remade recently and an incident where some kid thought the remake was the original, giving credit to the new artist. Or old TV movies/series that get remade to the same effect.
Every time a new distribution media comes along it is usually controlled easily and readily because startup costs and production tended to be centralized. Publishing companies need printing presses, music and TV need studios, etc. People who want to control the distribution can easily do so by cutting it off or regulating it at the source. Distribution was also easily controlled since transportation cartels tended to be monopolies or oligopolies that would make deals with producers or get taken over by them. Localized distrubitors could be bullied with threats of price wars or bribed with treats of guarenteed monopolies in their area (much as states do with wine distribution contracts these days). Yet the internet is an entirely different entity, in that distributor and publisher have been combined into one and that no one corporation can hope to realistically control even the majority of computer-based infrastructure.
As with any new medium, test cases arise that will set precedent for how to approach this new medium. Companies with the money are bribing Congressional officials to guarentee their copyrights and change the nature of them from honorable, respectable, limited right to an exact piece material into exclusive right to repress any and every idea even remotely based on the original idea for 75-100 years. Innovation has slowed dramatically as a result, and this would decimate engineering and scientific progress if the same ideas ever became law in those fields. Yet now people can readily copy material and distribute (publish) it with the click of a mouse. There's no time to tax it, regulate it, put it through a middleman, or anything else. Copyright laws were changing even before the internet came about, and music oligopolies were exploiting the populace for decades, but now they can be circumvented with ease. This infuriates the companies since fair-market value for their material turns out to be so much lower than their formerly enforcable prices were. Thus, in a backlash, they now want to charge more to "make up for lost profit" and have Draconian copyrights and copyright enforcement laws to protect their material ad infinitum whether it is justifiable or not.
What really makes this tricky is that the infrastructure is diverse and the battlefield is international. Laws are limited only to the country they are made in. Ultimately it would take the UN to write legislation for anything realistic to apply to the entire planet, so the companies are going for the next-best thing: arresting or bankrupting anyone in the US involved in "copyright violation" and trying to force other countries to do the same. They do this by threatening trade sanctions by bemoaning their loss of revenues due to "pirates", legitimate or otherwise, and getting pity from some of the populace. It also helps that these same companies also tend to own TV and news stations as well as many congressmen who rely on those sources to get re-elected.
It will be difficult to fight this war from our end since we lack the resources and congresmen of these giant companies. How do we fight back legally? First, get some like-minded friends together and write your congressmen and see if they won their last election by a thin margin. If they are not solidly rooted in their district, they will very likely listen to what you and your voting friends have to say. Second, if you are not already, get regist
It means "guarded condition", immediately above green ("low threat level") and below yellow ("elevated risk of terror attack"). Personally I find it redundant to have this department since the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DIA should have caught the 09/11 attacks before they happened in the first place. But nevertheless the "blue" level does exist.
n d/ bluecondition.html
_ th reat_chart_4.html
Links:
http://www.volusiahealth.com/eh/PocketPC/Homela
http://www.ch1hawaii.com/n/hlsec/national_alert
Get together the same team building the International Space Station. Japan provides the tech, America the money, Russia the (shoestring budget) design, Ukraine the lifting body, etc. China favors modernizing the Soyuz and going its own way, so more power to them. India does not have a published design on a launch vehicle that I am aware of. If the rest of the advanced nations are to work together on a mars mission and an international space station, let's also work together to standardize the LEO and HEO (high earth orbit) vehicles we use to get there.
No ship of this size should be named after a living person. Doing so cheapens the honor that others experience by having the ships named after them in death. I concur with the previous poster in that regard.
Has no one noticed that initially these ships were named after the greatest military battles in history but that this has shifted to being named for still-living personnel? Lexington, Yorktown, Midway, etc. Where is a Gettysburg? A carrier called Normandy? Why can't we see a Nimitz-class Vicksburg? Or at least a USS Inchon? Because they are now being named for (some naval personnel but mostly Republicans who once were) Presidents.
Reagan was responsible for the modern military as we understand it in the US. His presidency saw the inflation of spending to unprecedented levels. All of which had to pass through mostly Democratic Houses and Senates. Pork-barrel and politically motivated spending by both parties is what caused the massive expansion of debt between 1980-1988, not any one man. The same pork-barrel and politically motivated spending trends are still with us: socialized medicine, drug coverage for medicare, expansion of military spending without a war, etc.
Let me expand on these because they're not entirely obvious. Socialized medicine already exists in many parts of this country, where even the poorest can get complex surgery done and pay only what they can with the local governments covering the rest. Ever wonder where most of your local taxes go if you live in a major city? Schools and medical care for the poor are the two big ones in most places.
Drug coverage for medicare is another. Granted, sometimes name-brand drugs vary greatly from generics, but not very often. Most people asking for a drug these days are influenced by advertising for prescription drugs (allowed first under Reagan in 1987 if I remember right). Ban that, let the docs do their work, and see what happens.
Expansion of the military without a wartime situtation. This is a politically motivated tactic used by both Republicans looking to appease the might-makes-right faction and Democrats who get the parts made and vehicles assembled in their districts. Military suppliers make fortunes off of $700 toilet seats that only fail 1 time in 10 million. Costs could be slashed by integrating the military into one unit but most people won't support that.
This country has a mixed history of people in office, most of whom are either amoral, blatantly corrupt, or both. Recently we have seen many fascists (people who hold the view of strong executive branches running countries via corporate entities) in the executive branch, Ashcroft is the most glaring example but not the only one. No one man can be blamed for our country's ills and anyone, liberal or conservative, who does so is either unwilling to look at the whole record or trying to shift blame from their own party. If anyone would like to challenge that assertion, please provide a reason and documentation, I'd like to know how both sides justify blaming individuals for the faults of a country whose population approaches 0.3 billion.
The more often you have laws against guns, the more often the criminals you encounter will have them and the less likely the innocents will not! Criminals, by definition, are those who break (gun) laws after all...
Read the sig...
I find two glaring problems with this bill.
8 _new_antievolution_legislation_1_23_2002.asp)
One, parents should be in charge of their kids, not the government. With more parents off to work, there is less time to ensure that kids have proper guidance and development. This same problem arose during WWII when Dad was at the front or in the factory and Mom was often in the factory too. Latchkey kids spwaning gangs (Zoot Suit Riot, 1943 or 44 in Los Angeles), elevated teen pregnancy rates, runaways, etc. These reports sound familiar to anyone who studies modern urban youth would find the same problems back then. Lack of parenting, whether due to necessity or greed of the parents or whatever else, is the main cause behind the "moral decay" in this country as well as the vast majority of school shootings.
Two, solving the problems by attempting to legislate morality is both ineffective and dangerous. It is ineffective because the dealers are not going to police themselves if demand is high enough and the stores that sell copies under the table or without ID will prosper, potentially putting the rest out of business or causing them to discontinue the product in question altogether. It is dangerous because it sets precedent for allowing a faction of society to dictate its morality on the people who believe that good intentions will result. Remember, one mildly conservative in the Washington State Senate tried to prevent the teaching of evolution on the basis that it conflicted with Declaration of Independence. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/WA/97
Thus the potential exists of such a group not only legislating its morality on the rest of the country (Christian Conservatives are trying to do this piece at a time in several states on abortion, science education, etc.) but also to enforce their views in a legal sense*. Note recent laws proposed or passed by AG Ashcroft, Senators Santorum and Representative DeLay et al.
*Democrats are not innocent of this either, but the tend to use "security" and "equality" as their preferred excuses for violating civil liberties.
Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!
The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?
There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?
The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.
If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.
Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it. The current problem is not a conundrum best left to wealthy adventurers because our current obstacle is getting to space, not developing it. As soon as a means becomes available to get to lower Earth orbit for inexpensive sums, space will commercially develop at a break-neck pace, likely in a Wild West fashion.
For some unknown reason, many of us here in the US seem to think that if casualties are possible, it should not be done. This applies to warfare (Look at the furor over the ~100 killed in the recent Iraq skirmish), supersonic aircraft travel (Concorde; didn't stop flying until its one accident in 20 years), space travel (Columbia et. al). Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system prevents everyone else from getting a chance. If the success of the internet were translated to space, the international community would be very leery of one or even a handful of corporation controlling 95% of all space business.
Do we really want to see a potential case of three or four corporations (via wealthy individuals) dominating space? Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth? It is unacceptable to allow a few individuals to set the pace for space exploration exploitation. Instead, I'd rather see either nationally-funded exploration of space or extraordinary tax breaks for companies great and small dedicated to getting into space. Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO, so I figure chemical companies dedicated to polymers and their manufacture of such an elevator should be first in line. Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D and allow the two to combine forces as a driving vehicle of space exploitation. A highly competitive commercial situation for getting to and exploiting space would also drive technology faster than a monopolized or oligopolized situation (look at operating systems). Just my 2c...