Hey, I never said that corn farmers weren't welfare queens, and if I was President God King, I'd go after the corn farmers far before the government scientists.
"They are providing a service that the government is willing to pay for."
Exactly, the government is, by coercive proxy. I'm not. The government can't pay for anything. Only the taxpayers can.
"The government supports it because enough people believe it is in our national interest to do so."
There's this little concept in political science called rent-seeking. Just enough people think it's in their interest to do so, but that's not at all the same thing, not that it would matter in a constitutional republic, as saying that a majority of people believe if it's in the elusive and slippery "national interest." "National interest" almost always means "something I want that I've rationalized you should want to, even if you don't know you want it."
'Would you still agree with your own statement after substituting "police officer" for "JPL Scientist"?'
Last I knew, police had to go through a number of background checks, among other things. There's no reason why government functionaries, who hold so much power over us, should have the right to block our surveillance of their activities. However, as you may know, the police power is reserved to the several States, not the Federal government, so this is comparing apples and oranges, and is therefore an irrelevant tangent.
Why should we protect those engaged in unconstitutional activites with the Constitution? You don't think the 4th and 5th amendments can be taken in isolation, do you? If you care about the 4th and 5th amendments, you'd care about the entire document, not just a small section of the afterword.
If you work for G, you live off of T, and you are therefore owned by G. Notice that T causes ownership by G, and for this to occur, you must work for G. Not hard logic.
"By your reasoning, anyone who isn't self-employed (apparently the only 'real job') would be considered as 'owned' by their employer."
Not at all by my reasoning. How so by yours?
I don't think people need to be pointed to "Hobson's choice," as if they were previously unaware of it. And no, they're not given a Hobson's choice, even under your rules, as they can be self-employed.
I think you are willfully missing the point between living off of taxpayers (i.e. us) and living off of producing goods and service people will voluntarily purchase. Basically, you're trolling.
You work for the government, you live off of the taxpayers, you're owned by the government. If you want privacy, go get a real job. Otherwise, stop whining.
Slashdot ate my post. I said within a few minutes after posting the above, something akin to "Never mind. I should have read the bill. Then again, Congress never does."
If the Internet is labeled a terrorist tool, you can bet we'll see a great deal more of regulation and wiretapping on the part of the US government against its citizens, while also inadvertently providing a shield for tyrannically governments such as Syria and the People's Republic of China, who can just use the "terrorist tool" excuse for their repression, and point to the US.
Wait a sec, I'm a Jew, I back Ron Paul, I know other Jews that also back Ron Paul (no, not my family), so how are we like David Duke? There are David Duke types hanging around like fleas at the periphery of every campaign, but they are a minority on the fringe.
No malicious reporting there, after all, using the pejorative "boss" instead of the proper title of "CEO" isn't something anyone would notice. Everyone knows Google is evil, you don't need to market it.
That's possible, but then again, local utilities are gas, electricity and water, and not subject to searches, whereas network connectivity is and can be monitored. The FCC also loves to play with cable companies.
Who is AT&T allegedly selling us out to? The government. A government that has shown a steady march away from restrictions and boundaries, and towards plenary power. This is the government you trust to both act ethically without being held accountable, and to magically both meet demand and innovate without an economic calculus.
"Your stagnation argument is specious, as companies have even less motivation to serve monopoly customers and actively fight efforts by cities to deploy public networks."
Incorrect. Government operations are, lacking a profit motive, are inherently unmotivated and prone to stagnation, and you have still not addressed the problem of economic calculation under a centrally planned "last mile" concept.
Would you really want the government owning the last mile, for privacy reasons? Or are you comfortable with government having not only total access to your network activities, but also having total control over that access?
The article is total crap. All it states is that randomness is by definition not entirely random when viewed in fixed intervals, which is self-evident, and not at all interesting or helpful.
So who are you saying should own the last mile? What is the last mile? Everything from the CO to the end-point? What is the last mile for cable? Wireless, where there may not be a last mile? How would you deal with stagnation of the last mile from a technological and economic standpoint, whereas corporate set-ups would no doubt be taking full advantage of new and evolving standards?
How would re-monopolizing the telecom industry by helpful? Do you remember the AT&T days? Minimal innovation, limited service, high fees. Who is going to rent out the last mile? The monopoly? The government? How would you operate without an economic calculus?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I never said that corn farmers weren't welfare queens, and if I was President God King, I'd go after the corn farmers far before the government scientists.
Exactly, the government is, by coercive proxy. I'm not. The government can't pay for anything. Only the taxpayers can.
"The government supports it because enough people believe it is in our national interest to do so."
There's this little concept in political science called rent-seeking. Just enough people think it's in their interest to do so, but that's not at all the same thing, not that it would matter in a constitutional republic, as saying that a majority of people believe if it's in the elusive and slippery "national interest." "National interest" almost always means "something I want that I've rationalized you should want to, even if you don't know you want it."
'Would you still agree with your own statement after substituting "police officer" for "JPL Scientist"?'
Last I knew, police had to go through a number of background checks, among other things. There's no reason why government functionaries, who hold so much power over us, should have the right to block our surveillance of their activities. However, as you may know, the police power is reserved to the several States, not the Federal government, so this is comparing apples and oranges, and is therefore an irrelevant tangent.
Why should we protect those engaged in unconstitutional activites with the Constitution? You don't think the 4th and 5th amendments can be taken in isolation, do you? If you care about the 4th and 5th amendments, you'd care about the entire document, not just a small section of the afterword.
If you work for G, you live off of T, and you are therefore owned by G. Notice that T causes ownership by G, and for this to occur, you must work for G. Not hard logic.
Not at all by my reasoning. How so by yours?
I don't think people need to be pointed to "Hobson's choice," as if they were previously unaware of it. And no, they're not given a Hobson's choice, even under your rules, as they can be self-employed.
I think you are willfully missing the point between living off of taxpayers (i.e. us) and living off of producing goods and service people will voluntarily purchase. Basically, you're trolling.
You work for the government, you live off of the taxpayers, you're owned by the government. If you want privacy, go get a real job. Otherwise, stop whining.
Yeah, I'm an acquaintance of one of the "Jews 4 Ron Paul" founders.
Slashdot ate my post. I said within a few minutes after posting the above, something akin to "Never mind. I should have read the bill. Then again, Congress never does."
If the Internet is labeled a terrorist tool, you can bet we'll see a great deal more of regulation and wiretapping on the part of the US government against its citizens, while also inadvertently providing a shield for tyrannically governments such as Syria and the People's Republic of China, who can just use the "terrorist tool" excuse for their repression, and point to the US.
Wait a sec, I'm a Jew, I back Ron Paul, I know other Jews that also back Ron Paul (no, not my family), so how are we like David Duke? There are David Duke types hanging around like fleas at the periphery of every campaign, but they are a minority on the fringe.
Virgin Galactic et al will bring humanity into space, not central planners and their boondoggles.
Oh, mean the resolution, not the content.
Party boss, labor boss, machine boss, all negative.
No malicious reporting there, after all, using the pejorative "boss" instead of the proper title of "CEO" isn't something anyone would notice. Everyone knows Google is evil, you don't need to market it.
...but will there be any Russians left to build them? Demographics aren't looking very positive for Mother Russia.
Vista sales decreased last quarter: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/29/vista-sales-slow
That's possible, but then again, local utilities are gas, electricity and water, and not subject to searches, whereas network connectivity is and can be monitored. The FCC also loves to play with cable companies.
Think you might be surprised at how easy it is to willfully misconstrue the Commerce Clause to support a power grab.
Who is AT&T allegedly selling us out to? The government. A government that has shown a steady march away from restrictions and boundaries, and towards plenary power. This is the government you trust to both act ethically without being held accountable, and to magically both meet demand and innovate without an economic calculus.
Incorrect. Government operations are, lacking a profit motive, are inherently unmotivated and prone to stagnation, and you have still not addressed the problem of economic calculation under a centrally planned "last mile" concept.
Would you really want the government owning the last mile, for privacy reasons? Or are you comfortable with government having not only total access to your network activities, but also having total control over that access?
The article is total crap. All it states is that randomness is by definition not entirely random when viewed in fixed intervals, which is self-evident, and not at all interesting or helpful.
So who are you saying should own the last mile? What is the last mile? Everything from the CO to the end-point? What is the last mile for cable? Wireless, where there may not be a last mile? How would you deal with stagnation of the last mile from a technological and economic standpoint, whereas corporate set-ups would no doubt be taking full advantage of new and evolving standards?
How would re-monopolizing the telecom industry by helpful? Do you remember the AT&T days? Minimal innovation, limited service, high fees. Who is going to rent out the last mile? The monopoly? The government? How would you operate without an economic calculus?
You mean paying for service? If that's your argument, then everyone is owned by everyone else.