I agree with you - mostly. While corporations are apolitical, the people who run them are not and some of them don't maintain the Vulcan detachment necessary to always make the decision that's best for the company. Also, there are many companies who are highly partisan (New York Times? Fox News? MSNBC?) who haven't run into trouble because of it. That said, entertainment companies have no problem sending in lobbyists to buy off Republicans when necessary.
However, the GP's point was that Comcast would have had an easier time buying a media company during the Bush administration, presumably since Republicans are usually more pro-business. But the entertainment industry is extremely pro-Democrat AND they have lots of disposable income floating around. This has turned Hollywood into a major cash machine for the Democrats. While Republicans are friendlier to business in general, Democrats are very friendly to Hollywood in particular and they are more likely to accommodate such a lucrative industry.
When Hollywood wants another extension to copyrights, they'll pay off politicians on both sides of the aisle (or, for Orrin Hatch, they'll help him make another album). But the 4:1 fundraising advantage goes a long way towards getting preferential treatment from the Democrats.
Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep
If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):
The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.
So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.
It seems that since Congress mandated ethanol in our fuel a couple years ago, these price spikes have been far more dramatic.
There are several problems with ethanol. The sudden increase in demand (due to the new mandate) has led to a major price jump in ethanol as well as corn. The livestock industry is very unhappy as are food processors like Coca-Cola who rely on corn byproducts such as corn syrup. Mexico has faced widespread protests since the price of corn tortillas (one of their basic food staples) went up over 30%. And now it is an increasingly more expensive component of gasoline.
Ethanol doesn't transport easily. We can't ship it through pipelines, so we have to transport it by truck. Yep - we burn off large amounts of gas just trying to add this stuff to our fuel supplies. Add in the energy used to grow and harvest the corn, transport it to the ethanol plant, convert it into ethanol and then transport the ethanol to the gasoline processing plants and you can see what a boondoggle this has become. It takes over a gallon of gasoline to create a gallon of ethanol (best estimates put it at 1.29 gallons of gas per gallon of ethanol).
Ethanol can't store as much energy per gallon as gasoline does. So our MPG drops when we use ethanol blended fuels. Now we have to buy MORE gas to go the same distance which puts further pressure on the fuel supply, driving the price up even more.
So this mess doesn't seem to be the result of greedy oil companies as much as it is a byproduct of our Clueless Legislative Overlords.
IANAL, but it looks like the section you quote concerns intercepts of foreign communications. We're discussing whether or not the FBI needs a warrant to obtain the phone records of the reporters who were in contact with individuals who leaked classified information. In that instance, it looks like Section 2511(2)(h)(i) may be more applicable. Or not. I don't have the stamina (or ability) to read, cross-reference and decipher all that legalese, but I don't think your point applies to this situation.
According to the Supreme Court (Smith v Maryland, 1979), law enforcement agencies don't need warrants to obtain phone call records. It has something to do with how, when you dial a number, you openly transmit it to your phone company, you know they (and any other carrier that takes part in handling the call) keep a record of what you've dialed and you know they can provide that info back to you on your billing statement. Therefore you don't have an expectation to privacy when you dial. So no, the FBI probably didn't bother with warrants if they obtained these records as part of a criminal investigation.
When you combine the State Tax burden (where Massachusetts ranks #32) with the Federal Tax burden (where MA ranks #2 !) you get the total tax burden. Result: Massachusetts has the 4th highest tax burden in the US.
I imagine the Federal Tax burden differs from state to state depending on the cost of living and the amount of money people need to make to maintain equivalent living standards. For example, someone making $50,000 in Salt Lake City would have to make $89,000 to maintain their lifestyle in Boston. The MA resident would have the same standard of living as the UT resident, but is in a higher federal tax bracket and has to shell out a lot more $$ to Uncle Sam.
1) We don't know info what MS is gathering (so it's like we're letting the mechanic go through the glovebox on his assurance that he only wants to check the registration). And they can change what gets sent back at any time. And after the Media-Player-reports-what-DVDs-we-watch debacle, we've seen they have no problems spying on us - unless they get caught. But that's what encryption is for.
2) We only have their word that this is used anonymously - and there is nothing that precludes them from changing this policy in the future. RIAA has had pretty good success using IP addresses to sue people. I wouldn't be surprised to see MS go down the same road once they've finished picking the low-hanging fruit with this scheme.
3) If I had to show my car's registration before every tuneup, oil change or even refueling I'd start getting a little pissed off. This is not an extreme example. MS and other software companies dream of the day that their software phones home every time it is launched and they can turn it off at will. Look at what they're trying to get included with UCITA (http://www.ucita.com/)
4) Even though MS issued a press release, they're being sneaky. Check out the Windows Update site. If you choose "Custom" install, you get a message saying you should upgrade 'some components' to get all sorts of wonderful advantages from Windows Update. Only if you manage to spot the pale blue "Details" link (any lighter and it would blend into the background) will you find out that they're installing the Genuine Windows control. And it's irreversible - once installed it cannot be removed. If they're verifying this for my benefit, why must they be able to do it over and over again? Unless they have further plans for this nifty little utility.
I'm guessing that the immediate benefit for MS involves clamping down on shady PC makers and casual copiers. But for the long-term, this is setting up the infrastructure for subscription-based windows.
Well, MS won't be prosecuting every pirated copy they find...yet. From CD keys, to product activation to "Genuine Windows", each step leads to the next in their quest for Absolute License Enforcement.
The only problem with this analogy is that once Microsoft has created a patch, their distribution costs per copy of Windows (legit or pirated) is negligible. GM, on the other hand, has very significant costs associated with every car that is brought in for recall repairs. If you were to make their costs low-to-zero, say you bring it in to the service center for repairs that you pay for, I doubt that they check if it was stolen or under warranty.
My problem is the arrogance of software companies demanding the right to root around my PC at will. I think most people would be seriously pissed if everytime they tried to get something like touch-up paint at dealership (or even a free "I love my Mini-Cooper" bumper sticker), the clerks insisted on rummaging through their car looking for who knows what and mysteriously writing down info ("But it's all going to be used anonymously - we promise!"). Or if GM would drop by your house and demand you show proof of ownership before they allow you to drive the car. Every morning. Or else they'll reconfigure the ignition so it won't recognize your key. This is what some of the more aggressive product anti-piracy schemes are doing and where much of the software industry is heading...
And the casual pirates who use a single copy on multiple machines? They just download the patch on their 'legit' machine and then copy it over to the other ones. Nope - this is about putting the screws to shady whitebox dealers. I don't have a problem with that. Except that I am the one that ends up jumping through the hoops, weakening my ActiveX security levels and abandoning some measure of my privacy so that Microsoft can wage their vendetta against other companies. I wonder - do MS execs prefer "bitches" or "pawns" when they talk about paying customers?
I had it done about 5 years ago. Before my vision was pretty bad - my prescription was at -10 diopters with moderate astigmatism. After the surgery, my vision was really good (about 20/25 per eye). But the right eye started getting a little blurry so they did a correction a couple months later. Things were great for a year and then the right eye started blurring again. Another surgery. Another great year. But then the cycle restarted, my vision started to get blurry and they told me I couldn't do any more revisions to the right eye (too much cornea gone now apparently). So they gave me a contact - one of those rigid gas permeable toric lenses. And overnight the (uncorrected) vision in that eye dropped (contact reshaped the cornea apparently)
Then the left eye seemed a little blurry. A contact for that one and its uncorrected vision sucked almost as bad as the right eye's. Still not as nearsighted as before but the astigmatism was much, much worse. Seems they took too much off the corneas and they started to buckle and warp. My vision kept getting worse for awhile. Now the right eye is at -12 diopters (!?!) and the left is at -8. With 2 diopters of astigmatism (I think that's what the guy told me - does that make sense to the opticians out there?).
So I'm back to contacts all the time. But my vision with them isn't as good. And the vision without them is seriously jacked. But the worst part was being free from contacts for two years and having to go back to them. I really miss being able to fall asleep whenever and wherever...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you - mostly. While corporations are apolitical, the people who run them are not and some of them don't maintain the Vulcan detachment necessary to always make the decision that's best for the company. Also, there are many companies who are highly partisan (New York Times? Fox News? MSNBC?) who haven't run into trouble because of it. That said, entertainment companies have no problem sending in lobbyists to buy off Republicans when necessary.
However, the GP's point was that Comcast would have had an easier time buying a media company during the Bush administration, presumably since Republicans are usually more pro-business. But the entertainment industry is extremely pro-Democrat AND they have lots of disposable income floating around. This has turned Hollywood into a major cash machine for the Democrats. While Republicans are friendlier to business in general, Democrats are very friendly to Hollywood in particular and they are more likely to accommodate such a lucrative industry.
When Hollywood wants another extension to copyrights, they'll pay off politicians on both sides of the aisle (or, for Orrin Hatch, they'll help him make another album). But the 4:1 fundraising advantage goes a long way towards getting preferential treatment from the Democrats.
Business != Conservative
Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep
If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):
The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.
So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.
There are several problems with ethanol. The sudden increase in demand (due to the new mandate) has led to a major price jump in ethanol as well as corn. The livestock industry is very unhappy as are food processors like Coca-Cola who rely on corn byproducts such as corn syrup. Mexico has faced widespread protests since the price of corn tortillas (one of their basic food staples) went up over 30%. And now it is an increasingly more expensive component of gasoline.
Ethanol doesn't transport easily. We can't ship it through pipelines, so we have to transport it by truck. Yep - we burn off large amounts of gas just trying to add this stuff to our fuel supplies. Add in the energy used to grow and harvest the corn, transport it to the ethanol plant, convert it into ethanol and then transport the ethanol to the gasoline processing plants and you can see what a boondoggle this has become. It takes over a gallon of gasoline to create a gallon of ethanol (best estimates put it at 1.29 gallons of gas per gallon of ethanol).
Ethanol can't store as much energy per gallon as gasoline does. So our MPG drops when we use ethanol blended fuels. Now we have to buy MORE gas to go the same distance which puts further pressure on the fuel supply, driving the price up even more.
So this mess doesn't seem to be the result of greedy oil companies as much as it is a byproduct of our Clueless Legislative Overlords.
IANAL, but it looks like the section you quote concerns intercepts of foreign communications. We're discussing whether or not the FBI needs a warrant to obtain the phone records of the reporters who were in contact with individuals who leaked classified information. In that instance, it looks like Section 2511(2)(h)(i) may be more applicable. Or not. I don't have the stamina (or ability) to read, cross-reference and decipher all that legalese, but I don't think your point applies to this situation.
According to the Supreme Court (Smith v Maryland, 1979), law enforcement agencies don't need warrants to obtain phone call records. It has something to do with how, when you dial a number, you openly transmit it to your phone company, you know they (and any other carrier that takes part in handling the call) keep a record of what you've dialed and you know they can provide that info back to you on your billing statement. Therefore you don't have an expectation to privacy when you dial. So no, the FBI probably didn't bother with warrants if they obtained these records as part of a criminal investigation.
When you combine the State Tax burden (where Massachusetts ranks #32) with the Federal Tax burden (where MA ranks #2 !) you get the total tax burden. Result: Massachusetts has the 4th highest tax burden in the US.
I imagine the Federal Tax burden differs from state to state depending on the cost of living and the amount of money people need to make to maintain equivalent living standards. For example, someone making $50,000 in Salt Lake City would have to make $89,000 to maintain their lifestyle in Boston. The MA resident would have the same standard of living as the UT resident, but is in a higher federal tax bracket and has to shell out a lot more $$ to Uncle Sam.
1) We don't know info what MS is gathering (so it's like we're letting the mechanic go through the glovebox on his assurance that he only wants to check the registration). And they can change what gets sent back at any time. And after the Media-Player-reports-what-DVDs-we-watch debacle, we've seen they have no problems spying on us - unless they get caught. But that's what encryption is for.
2) We only have their word that this is used anonymously - and there is nothing that precludes them from changing this policy in the future. RIAA has had pretty good success using IP addresses to sue people. I wouldn't be surprised to see MS go down the same road once they've finished picking the low-hanging fruit with this scheme.
3) If I had to show my car's registration before every tuneup, oil change or even refueling I'd start getting a little pissed off. This is not an extreme example. MS and other software companies dream of the day that their software phones home every time it is launched and they can turn it off at will. Look at what they're trying to get included with UCITA (http://www.ucita.com/)
4) Even though MS issued a press release, they're being sneaky. Check out the Windows Update site. If you choose "Custom" install, you get a message saying you should upgrade 'some components' to get all sorts of wonderful advantages from Windows Update. Only if you manage to spot the pale blue "Details" link (any lighter and it would blend into the background) will you find out that they're installing the Genuine Windows control. And it's irreversible - once installed it cannot be removed. If they're verifying this for my benefit, why must they be able to do it over and over again? Unless they have further plans for this nifty little utility.
I'm guessing that the immediate benefit for MS involves clamping down on shady PC makers and casual copiers. But for the long-term, this is setting up the infrastructure for subscription-based windows.
The only problem with this analogy is that once Microsoft has created a patch, their distribution costs per copy of Windows (legit or pirated) is negligible. GM, on the other hand, has very significant costs associated with every car that is brought in for recall repairs. If you were to make their costs low-to-zero, say you bring it in to the service center for repairs that you pay for, I doubt that they check if it was stolen or under warranty.
My problem is the arrogance of software companies demanding the right to root around my PC at will. I think most people would be seriously pissed if everytime they tried to get something like touch-up paint at dealership (or even a free "I love my Mini-Cooper" bumper sticker), the clerks insisted on rummaging through their car looking for who knows what and mysteriously writing down info ("But it's all going to be used anonymously - we promise!"). Or if GM would drop by your house and demand you show proof of ownership before they allow you to drive the car. Every morning. Or else they'll reconfigure the ignition so it won't recognize your key. This is what some of the more aggressive product anti-piracy schemes are doing and where much of the software industry is heading...
And the casual pirates who use a single copy on multiple machines? They just download the patch on their 'legit' machine and then copy it over to the other ones. Nope - this is about putting the screws to shady whitebox dealers. I don't have a problem with that. Except that I am the one that ends up jumping through the hoops, weakening my ActiveX security levels and abandoning some measure of my privacy so that Microsoft can wage their vendetta against other companies. I wonder - do MS execs prefer "bitches" or "pawns" when they talk about paying customers?
It gets better - they are apparently against sharing wives but its ok to sell them...
Then the left eye seemed a little blurry. A contact for that one and its uncorrected vision sucked almost as bad as the right eye's. Still not as nearsighted as before but the astigmatism was much, much worse. Seems they took too much off the corneas and they started to buckle and warp. My vision kept getting worse for awhile. Now the right eye is at -12 diopters (!?!) and the left is at -8. With 2 diopters of astigmatism (I think that's what the guy told me - does that make sense to the opticians out there?).
So I'm back to contacts all the time. But my vision with them isn't as good. And the vision without them is seriously jacked. But the worst part was being free from contacts for two years and having to go back to them. I really miss being able to fall asleep whenever and wherever...
Does anybody know what he just said??