Nothing you stated is rational or logical. If a member of congress can make a vote for a contract, then go purchase stock on the company right after the vote (or sell if the vote was "no"), that is an abuse of power. Period, end of statement, and there is no possible way you can justify that abuse of power. This is a regular habit for certain members of congress who increase personal wealth at incredible rates while in office.
That you don't want the President to go after them completely misses the concept of having judicial oversight for people holding offices. That complacency is why we have rampant abuse today by nearly every government office, including the GAO which is supposed to stop fraud and abuses.
most of the people in politics hate the system as much as you do.
I have two words for that comment. "Ha" and "Ha" again.
Actions speak much louder than words, and Congress had numerous opportunities to make things better and has never done so, continually reducing regulations and oversight while claiming "oh yeah, it's bad and we hate it". If you continue to believe the lie that's your problem, but how about looking at some of the votes for something simple and easy like disallowing congress immunity for using insider trading knowledge.
If it was "most" as you claim that would have been corrected long ago by a simple vote. No such thing ever happened, so how do you continue to believe they hate the system? Seriously, are you that gullible or just a shill?
You are attempting to mince terms to ignore the bribery since it does not come from 1 person/company as opposed to looking at the recipient of the bribe.
40 years ago the rules were different and sure it was called bribery. Today, no such thing. Campaign contributions can be used for clothing if said clothing is used on the campaign trail, it can be used for food, lodging, travel expenses, etc.. etc.. and this is all over the table. People holding offices receive regular "all expenses paid" trips to "seminars" regularly (even though the seminar may actually consist of a couple hour meeting which many don't attend).
So over the table, you can pay for just about all living expenses on "contributions", but we don't call that bribery because it's not directly stuffing wads of cash into someone's pocket. Makes no difference in the long run, because if I don't have to pay for food, clothing, travel, "entertainment", laptops, email, web hosting, and all the other shit I can put on my "contribution" fund I bank a huge sum of money that everyone else would have to pay for living expenses.
Why do you think one of the fastest ways to become a millionaire in the US is to be elected to Congress or the Senate? But of course you will probably claim that facts are fud since it harms your asinine opinion. Make sure you are ignoring the fact that members of the House and Senate can legally use insider trading knowledge to make sacks full of money that you and I would go to jail for (and have repeatedly refused to change the law).
Clickbait in print is called "sensationalism". It defines some genres of media (tabloids) and was avoided until recently by companies that were considered higher caliber journalism. That we have no "news" above sensationalism today is telling in my opinion.
With all the hyper sensationalism today, I would be interested in seeing a large "news" site like "The Guardian" drop the sensationalism for a few weeks and see what happens. I'm guessing that readership may actually increase, if for no other reason than the appearance of being different. In a society full of bullshit a little bit of honesty may go a long way.
Could be a pipe dream too, not everyone is intelligent or worried about honesty.
I run ad-block and noscript, I don't see any ads for any site unless I approve the content. Being a smart consumer is good for your health...
That said, I don't visit facebook. Even back when it was the fad to have an account I never saw it as a "news" site, I saw it as entertainment (time burner). Memes are cute, but not news. I used to be able to hold a conversation with friends, but the improperly named "time line" broke that ability because anything that gets a "like" gets to the top of the stack so people can re-order the conversation.
If you didn't give rights to them when you uploaded a photo, I'd consider using to share photos with family. Of course they fucked that up too, demonstrating their lack of concern in court on several occasions.
[/shrug] If people want to use it, I'm okay with that. I do think they should pop up key areas of their EULA on occasion so that you don't forget who owns photos you upload, and how they censor and change content as they see fit.
You missed "censor content they don't like" and "ship that same content to the appropriate government spooks".
Facebook is trying to appear as relevant as they were 5 years ago. Every TV "News" agency is still saying "like us" and given the games we know they are playing it's getting more and more contrived.
Thomas Edison was one of numerous scientists that were working on similar "inventions". Scientists shared notes and findings which lead to the invention of the filament bulb, but it surely was not one guy doing all of the work.
The patent system gave a monopoly to Edison and isolated every other scientist that worked on the bulb reducing "their" work to non-existence a short time later. It did not help anything in science, and the only person that benefited was "Edison".
The same guy by the way, that staged live executions to show how dangerous AC was and cost Tesla numerous contracts (one of numerous publicity stunts to help his own career and harm others). It only cost Tesla most of his funding. It only took us a century to figure out what a genius Tesla really was and what a dickhead Edison really was.
I'm sure we could spend time digging and find a patent that is not complete bullshit, but your example is surely not one of the few.
But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke...
Willful ignorance, got it. Controlling media to shape society by providing fabricated opinion is not new. Adam Weishaupt wrote all about this technique back in the late 1700s for exactly the purpose of controlling Governments by controlling citizen opinions. If you are trying to claim that media is public therefor can't be secret, you should really try harder to understand that the opinions and fact that they are used to shape society is what is "secret". You can read documents from the CFR to see directions, but the fact that Fox repeats mantras handed to them by controllers is not visible.
they're an entertainment company that tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.
While surely the masses play a part in hiding in the cave, the problem stems from the fact that the word "NEWS" was hijacked. People tried to sue FOX for fabricating stories and claiming was "news" and courts ruled that "News" is "entertainment". Simply reading a dictionary would dispel any such notion, but corruption is well beyond "News" agencies and has infested every portion of our Government to include the Judicial system.
Note that the people did not sue Fox for creating entertainment, they sued them for intentionally misleading the public by falsely claiming that their "entertainment" was "factual news".
Sure, the blame is separate and distinct but if you are never told that "News" has become fabricated entertainment how do you know to look for the false claims? Simply put, you don't.
Good advice, but a few additional points. For item 1 it's not always possible. Good to have a plan, but in a disaster you may not be able to go any place. If you must leave (volcano/tsunami) GTFO, but in many cases you are not better off leaving. Someone knows where you live and will get help out eventually. They won't know that you drove through a mountain pass and got stranded.
For item 2 radios are great for both entertainment and news. Item 3 may be confused with Facebook because of terminology, and that is a horrible idea. Having no power in 2K3 for 10 days we socialized with neighbors and shared cooking gear (neighborhood BBQ grills). It gave us entertainment, helped with things we needed to do, and was considerably better for us than sitting in isolation somewhere.
Photo ID is important, but everything else can be replaced without too much pain.
I'm not sure if you read the article and checked the block page screen shot, I did. The University spokesperson stated that it was not a block and the student could log in. The image has no option to bypass or go to a next step, it's a block.
Next, the spokesperson claimed that the policy only applied to staff at the University. Reading their AUP there is no such restriction to staff, and in fact the first paragraph includes students. Northern Illinois University information technology resources, including the electronic communications network (NIUnet) on the NIU campus and off-campus education and research centers, computers attached to this network, and any associated computational resource or service are for the use of persons affiliated with Northern Illinois University, including faculty, staff, emeritus personnel, and students in good standing. Emphasis mine.
The spokesperson may have been confused (or simply dishonest) as later in the same paragraph a justification mentions employee ethics as a "justification", not an inclusion or exclusion. Information technology resources are provided by the university to further the university's mission of research, instruction, and public service. The use of these resources should be consistent with this mission, this policy, and the University’s other use, security policies, and other applicable regulations including the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (SOEEA). Again, emphasis is mine.
The AUP is not legaleze, and can be read and interpreted without much difficulty.
Sure, it's possible there was a network F*ck up or something else which cause the student to receive the block. That said, if the student agreed to this AUP the University is within their rights. I have modified numerous customer facing AUPs, they are always reviewed and approved by legal before consumption. If the University claimed to have released this AUP "on accident" or "with accidental content" I would call bullshit.
If their intent was not to censor content for students, the AUP needs to be scrapped and re-written to exclude students from the policy. Obviously they also need to correct their censoring software to exclude student computers and networks and ensure that it's only censoring content for faculty.
After big data they will hire people to think and actually produce useful/actionable insights.
Haha, you wish!
Marketing will just start a new buzzword trend. Investors will all dump shit tons of money into projects believing it's the new ".com" and try to cash in. Management will think it's the "next big thing" sheep will perform their normal function of following the herd. Techies will all scratch their heads wondering why people continue to fall into the game of hype, and continue to believe that one day people will learn.
Techies don't pull the purse strings, and until that changes the market will remain in the same cycle.
I hope you are correct, but I imagine that there will be a whole lot of ballot stuffing and there will be no independence. As you point out, you are a revenue source for the crown. They don't give 2 shits about you, but they do care about your money. Or at least being able to take it from you, by force when necessary.
I don't disagree with your point, but it's not relevant to anything I stated either. Goods were being shipped by train and boat much more than trucks and airplanes. Technology was already starting to change that _before_ we had a federal highway program. Very few people needed, or even wanted, to drive across the country. Fewer could actually, because cars were not reliable enough for long excursions. Where it was needed, there were non-federal programs upgrading roads. Like in Michigan who was producing the majority of the cars and trucks.
As I stated way above, the Government surely added some benefit with the Federal Highway program. I fully agree that it expedited the creation of the highways. It's the claim that the roads don't exist without Federal Government which I dispute.
Surveying a road, grading and maintaining it always comes with a pretty stiff price tag.
A very brief study of the Roman Empire road building demonstrates that you are absolutely wrong. We can absolutely say that "Costs inflated when road building became a government monopoly in modern times". To back that point you need to look at the development of roads by the private sectors and by the Roman armies, which occurred simultaneously.
First, I'll discount your claim that surveying and maintenance is expensive. Surveying was taught to low ranking officers, it only required a basic education in math to accomplish. Surveying was not even necessary in most cases, because natural contours and animal trails were used to route most roads.
As for maintenance, roads were maintained by the people that used the roads to commute. The highways Roman soldiers built were mostly used by soldiers, so they did most of the maintenance. City roads were maintained by those commuters as well. Farmers cleared debris from roads and filled in holes on their way into cities to sell goods. The market handled maintenance just as well as the Government, and the cost was not higher. Sure, today we commute way too frequently to have people out patching the roads. Maintenance surely has costs, no argument here. Monopolization ensures those costs are much higher than they need to be.
Local roads and bridges were traditionally paid for by taxes, tolls and contributions of labor and materials.
Well that statement covers just about everything possible, so can't be false. You cover Government (taxes) as well as public (labor and materials) projects with no discrimination, so it really does not make any statement.
Long distance travel by car was damn near impossible before the US federal government became directly and deeply involved.
This is a false dichotomy. People traveling from New York to San Francisco did so by train because it was faster and cheaper. Cars were not driving thousands of miles, because they would break down and run out of gas on the way. We did not have massive trucks pulling massive loads, roads did not need to accommodate things that did not exist.
As cars improved in reliability and performance, cities and towns were building sturdier roads to accommodate more cars and the heavier trucks.
Where costs increased massively in the US is when the Federal Government received the power to contract out the work instead of actually doing the work. In Rome, soldiers built the roads when not fighting (in addition to fortifications, taking out the trash, digging drainage ditches, building aqueducts, etc...) so there was no "extra" costs. Government contracts are where most of the corruption exists. Smaller cities didn't have massive projects with massive budgets, and were far less susceptible to corruption.
As I state above, surely Federal Government adds some benefits to these types of projects. We have anecdote to back that, but we have at least as much anecdote to say that the Federal Government also harms these types of programs.
You really should at least attempt to study a bit of history before you spout off.
roads mainly consisted of dirt tracks (if you were lucky you might get some rocks on the side to mark where the track is)
Roads were mostly dirt because we were mostly using horses and trains for transportation. Dirt was all that was needed. In high traffic areas, like city streets, the roads were brick and stone. Because in high traffic areas brick and stone was needed. See how that works?
Lets not forget that we lacked the ability to lay and pour large amounts of concrete for roads. It was not until we had high volumes of motorized vehicles that could carry these loads that we started the Federal Highway program. And who do you think invented Concrete pouring trucks, leveling equipment, cartography, steam rollers, etc...? Hint, it was not the Government!
Your sewage example is a laughable as well. The Government could have performed a Government function of regulation, instead of taking over all of the roles directly. Most cities had city planners that did exactly that before it was taken over.
firefighting was done by volunteer groups whose main desire was to prevent their own homes from being consumed as well.
Bullshit! It was also done by community members that wanted to make sure the neighbors would help them if their houses caught fire. There can always be some self serving nature to social activities, but that does not imply that they are completely self serving. Normal humans are actually trusting and empathetic. Self serving egotists are usually called sociopaths or psychopaths. That said, I realize that the terms have been diminished and glamorized as "ruthless business person", but if the definition fits...
Well, as a long time student of Philosophy and Economics I disagree with both of those opinions at least given the sweeping generalization.
Socrates had things pegged very well in Plato's "The Republic" in terms of what a Government is supposed to be. Not perfect mind you, but very close. The USA was founded as an attempt to implement a Republic similar to how it was described. It was not very close to the ideal, but it was the closest we have seen since the book was written over 2,500 years ago.
Economies and Economics are required to function. Not what we have today mind you, think the basics of having a currency to exchange.
Where I believe people get hung up is confusing that humans will corrupt any system to gain power, with a system being corrupt by nature. Systems in many cases are fine, and we need many of these systems. Systems require vigilant monitoring and policing remove corruption.
Take the USA for example. If we could remove all of the corruption, remove many of the laws the corrupt people put into place (idea patents is an easy target), and having Police protecting our Constitutional rights, the USA would be a pretty nice place to live. At present, it can be a frightening place to live because police are not protecting the public from the corrupt, they are protecting the corrupt from the public.
The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them. If you are referring to the Highway programs, those were not Federal Government ideas. Those were citizen and business owner ideas. The program went to the Feds because it was easy at the time, and saved States from having to negotiate connecting points.
The Government may have expedited some of the process, but we don't know how much because we only implemented one Federal highway program. In other words, it's impossible to measure help or harm from the Federal program. Did it add some benefit, sure, but you can't truthfully claim that it's all because of Government.
I'm not sure how many photos you have seen from the 1800s, back before the Government handled trash pickup, but I have never seen any that show giant trash piles in every lot. As with roads, trash pickup was happening without Government intervention as well. The Government didn't come up with concepts like "If you drink water with trash in it, it's not good water", we knew that well before a take over by the Government.
Your last example is the worst. Firefighters used to be all volunteers, and many fire departments still run on a measurable percentage of volunteers. Large cities collect taxes for dedicated people, and people can choose to live there or out in the sticks where they lack the services and don't pay the premiums. Believe it or not, Firefighting has happened in communities for as long as we have had communities without Government intervention.
In all of your examples, there is not a single case where you can claim that Government is needed. You can in some cases claim it adds benefits, but at the same time it's difficult to measure how much. Road building (construction in general) has, and historically has had, significant levels of political corruption.
It's impossible to provide hundreds of pages of concept in a post, so I'll recommend you read Stephan Molyneux or listen to his podcasts on anarchism. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's good for the brain to contemplate alternative opinion.
Jon Corbett was reporting on this at least 2 years ago. Video here and articles in numerous locations. If I remember correctly, he was threatened by the DOJ and put on a no fly list for his trouble, in addition to being ignored by MSM.
I would certainly agree that exceptions are both possible and possible, and would not argue that exceptions don't exist. Very little in the world is purely black or purely white. GP at least implied that the only option was to share, and my point was that there are better alternatives.
With no qualification of your point, like "Hey, what about exceptions?" it seems like you are in agreement with the GP that the only answer is to give away your password.
Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.
I'll give you a very easy starting point if you hate sifting data, assuming you really want to look. Alex Jones has had numerous take down orders, accounts cancelled, and content banned. I don't agree with much of what he says, but at the same time I don't believe that he should be censored. He's an easy one to find information on, there there are numerous other less sensationalist people that have similar stories.
GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie. Google even publishes some of the bogus requests.
Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit? Anyone that understands the basics of statistics should have a WTF moment by looking at this graph
These are not court processes with transcripts, but enough communications can be reviewed to determine that the majority of these are not people ripping off and sharing a song or movie.
Are you seriously attempting to imply that the rare exception should justify the rule for normal behavior? I really hope not, but that's how I read what you wrote.
Your statement is based on an absolutely false assumption. You really don't have to look hard to find that most requests have nothing to do with illegal content. The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes.
Even if you trust someone to fix a problem, why would you trust them with your password? Set a temporary password so they can fix something, then change it back when they are done fixing. I have no idea why you would give someone the temptation, especially when there are simple safe alternatives.
No, it's not the same thing as just driving a car or having risks while driving a car.
If you want a "proper" car analogy...
Your friend needs to borrow your car. Would you make your friend a copy of your keys or give them the spares without the expectation that you get the keys back? No! You would give them your keys and expect that both the keys and car are returned later.
Sure, they could go make copies of the keys, just like someone could install a back door. If you "trust" someone you hope not.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing you stated is rational or logical. If a member of congress can make a vote for a contract, then go purchase stock on the company right after the vote (or sell if the vote was "no"), that is an abuse of power. Period, end of statement, and there is no possible way you can justify that abuse of power. This is a regular habit for certain members of congress who increase personal wealth at incredible rates while in office.
That you don't want the President to go after them completely misses the concept of having judicial oversight for people holding offices. That complacency is why we have rampant abuse today by nearly every government office, including the GAO which is supposed to stop fraud and abuses.
most of the people in politics hate the system as much as you do.
I have two words for that comment. "Ha" and "Ha" again.
Actions speak much louder than words, and Congress had numerous opportunities to make things better and has never done so, continually reducing regulations and oversight while claiming "oh yeah, it's bad and we hate it". If you continue to believe the lie that's your problem, but how about looking at some of the votes for something simple and easy like disallowing congress immunity for using insider trading knowledge.
If it was "most" as you claim that would have been corrected long ago by a simple vote. No such thing ever happened, so how do you continue to believe they hate the system? Seriously, are you that gullible or just a shill?
You are attempting to mince terms to ignore the bribery since it does not come from 1 person/company as opposed to looking at the recipient of the bribe.
40 years ago the rules were different and sure it was called bribery. Today, no such thing. Campaign contributions can be used for clothing if said clothing is used on the campaign trail, it can be used for food, lodging, travel expenses, etc.. etc.. and this is all over the table. People holding offices receive regular "all expenses paid" trips to "seminars" regularly (even though the seminar may actually consist of a couple hour meeting which many don't attend).
So over the table, you can pay for just about all living expenses on "contributions", but we don't call that bribery because it's not directly stuffing wads of cash into someone's pocket. Makes no difference in the long run, because if I don't have to pay for food, clothing, travel, "entertainment", laptops, email, web hosting, and all the other shit I can put on my "contribution" fund I bank a huge sum of money that everyone else would have to pay for living expenses.
Why do you think one of the fastest ways to become a millionaire in the US is to be elected to Congress or the Senate? But of course you will probably claim that facts are fud since it harms your asinine opinion. Make sure you are ignoring the fact that members of the House and Senate can legally use insider trading knowledge to make sacks full of money that you and I would go to jail for (and have repeatedly refused to change the law).
Clickbait in print is called "sensationalism". It defines some genres of media (tabloids) and was avoided until recently by companies that were considered higher caliber journalism. That we have no "news" above sensationalism today is telling in my opinion.
With all the hyper sensationalism today, I would be interested in seeing a large "news" site like "The Guardian" drop the sensationalism for a few weeks and see what happens. I'm guessing that readership may actually increase, if for no other reason than the appearance of being different. In a society full of bullshit a little bit of honesty may go a long way.
Could be a pipe dream too, not everyone is intelligent or worried about honesty.
I run ad-block and noscript, I don't see any ads for any site unless I approve the content. Being a smart consumer is good for your health...
That said, I don't visit facebook. Even back when it was the fad to have an account I never saw it as a "news" site, I saw it as entertainment (time burner). Memes are cute, but not news. I used to be able to hold a conversation with friends, but the improperly named "time line" broke that ability because anything that gets a "like" gets to the top of the stack so people can re-order the conversation.
If you didn't give rights to them when you uploaded a photo, I'd consider using to share photos with family. Of course they fucked that up too, demonstrating their lack of concern in court on several occasions.
[/shrug] If people want to use it, I'm okay with that. I do think they should pop up key areas of their EULA on occasion so that you don't forget who owns photos you upload, and how they censor and change content as they see fit.
You missed "censor content they don't like" and "ship that same content to the appropriate government spooks".
Facebook is trying to appear as relevant as they were 5 years ago. Every TV "News" agency is still saying "like us" and given the games we know they are playing it's getting more and more contrived.
Thomas Edison was one of numerous scientists that were working on similar "inventions". Scientists shared notes and findings which lead to the invention of the filament bulb, but it surely was not one guy doing all of the work.
The patent system gave a monopoly to Edison and isolated every other scientist that worked on the bulb reducing "their" work to non-existence a short time later. It did not help anything in science, and the only person that benefited was "Edison".
The same guy by the way, that staged live executions to show how dangerous AC was and cost Tesla numerous contracts (one of numerous publicity stunts to help his own career and harm others). It only cost Tesla most of his funding. It only took us a century to figure out what a genius Tesla really was and what a dickhead Edison really was.
I'm sure we could spend time digging and find a patent that is not complete bullshit, but your example is surely not one of the few.
If you are not on the ground floor shaking/swaying is amplified a little.
But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke...
Willful ignorance, got it. Controlling media to shape society by providing fabricated opinion is not new. Adam Weishaupt wrote all about this technique back in the late 1700s for exactly the purpose of controlling Governments by controlling citizen opinions. If you are trying to claim that media is public therefor can't be secret, you should really try harder to understand that the opinions and fact that they are used to shape society is what is "secret". You can read documents from the CFR to see directions, but the fact that Fox repeats mantras handed to them by controllers is not visible.
they're an entertainment company that tells a certain group of people what they want to hear.
While surely the masses play a part in hiding in the cave, the problem stems from the fact that the word "NEWS" was hijacked. People tried to sue FOX for fabricating stories and claiming was "news" and courts ruled that "News" is "entertainment". Simply reading a dictionary would dispel any such notion, but corruption is well beyond "News" agencies and has infested every portion of our Government to include the Judicial system.
Note that the people did not sue Fox for creating entertainment, they sued them for intentionally misleading the public by falsely claiming that their "entertainment" was "factual news".
Sure, the blame is separate and distinct but if you are never told that "News" has become fabricated entertainment how do you know to look for the false claims? Simply put, you don't.
Good advice, but a few additional points. For item 1 it's not always possible. Good to have a plan, but in a disaster you may not be able to go any place. If you must leave (volcano/tsunami) GTFO, but in many cases you are not better off leaving. Someone knows where you live and will get help out eventually. They won't know that you drove through a mountain pass and got stranded.
For item 2 radios are great for both entertainment and news. Item 3 may be confused with Facebook because of terminology, and that is a horrible idea. Having no power in 2K3 for 10 days we socialized with neighbors and shared cooking gear (neighborhood BBQ grills). It gave us entertainment, helped with things we needed to do, and was considerably better for us than sitting in isolation somewhere.
Photo ID is important, but everything else can be replaced without too much pain.
I am just a bit north of you in Mountain View and it was violent enough for long enough that smaller objects fell (nick knacks, candles).
I'm not sure if you read the article and checked the block page screen shot, I did. The University spokesperson stated that it was not a block and the student could log in. The image has no option to bypass or go to a next step, it's a block.
Next, the spokesperson claimed that the policy only applied to staff at the University. Reading their AUP there is no such restriction to staff, and in fact the first paragraph includes students. Northern Illinois University information technology resources, including the electronic communications network (NIUnet) on the NIU campus and off-campus education and research centers, computers attached to this network, and any associated computational resource or service are for the use of persons affiliated with Northern Illinois University, including faculty, staff, emeritus personnel, and students in good standing. Emphasis mine.
The spokesperson may have been confused (or simply dishonest) as later in the same paragraph a justification mentions employee ethics as a "justification", not an inclusion or exclusion. Information technology resources are provided by the university to further the university's mission of research, instruction, and public service. The use of these resources should be consistent with this mission, this policy, and the University’s other use, security policies, and other applicable regulations including the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (SOEEA). Again, emphasis is mine.
The AUP is not legaleze, and can be read and interpreted without much difficulty.
Sure, it's possible there was a network F*ck up or something else which cause the student to receive the block. That said, if the student agreed to this AUP the University is within their rights. I have modified numerous customer facing AUPs, they are always reviewed and approved by legal before consumption. If the University claimed to have released this AUP "on accident" or "with accidental content" I would call bullshit.
If their intent was not to censor content for students, the AUP needs to be scrapped and re-written to exclude students from the policy. Obviously they also need to correct their censoring software to exclude student computers and networks and ensure that it's only censoring content for faculty.
After big data they will hire people to think and actually produce useful/actionable insights.
Haha, you wish!
Marketing will just start a new buzzword trend. Investors will all dump shit tons of money into projects believing it's the new ".com" and try to cash in. Management will think it's the "next big thing" sheep will perform their normal function of following the herd. Techies will all scratch their heads wondering why people continue to fall into the game of hype, and continue to believe that one day people will learn.
Techies don't pull the purse strings, and until that changes the market will remain in the same cycle.
I hope you are correct, but I imagine that there will be a whole lot of ballot stuffing and there will be no independence. As you point out, you are a revenue source for the crown. They don't give 2 shits about you, but they do care about your money. Or at least being able to take it from you, by force when necessary.
I don't disagree with your point, but it's not relevant to anything I stated either. Goods were being shipped by train and boat much more than trucks and airplanes. Technology was already starting to change that _before_ we had a federal highway program. Very few people needed, or even wanted, to drive across the country. Fewer could actually, because cars were not reliable enough for long excursions. Where it was needed, there were non-federal programs upgrading roads. Like in Michigan who was producing the majority of the cars and trucks.
As I stated way above, the Government surely added some benefit with the Federal Highway program. I fully agree that it expedited the creation of the highways. It's the claim that the roads don't exist without Federal Government which I dispute.
Surveying a road, grading and maintaining it always comes with a pretty stiff price tag.
A very brief study of the Roman Empire road building demonstrates that you are absolutely wrong. We can absolutely say that "Costs inflated when road building became a government monopoly in modern times". To back that point you need to look at the development of roads by the private sectors and by the Roman armies, which occurred simultaneously.
First, I'll discount your claim that surveying and maintenance is expensive. Surveying was taught to low ranking officers, it only required a basic education in math to accomplish. Surveying was not even necessary in most cases, because natural contours and animal trails were used to route most roads.
As for maintenance, roads were maintained by the people that used the roads to commute. The highways Roman soldiers built were mostly used by soldiers, so they did most of the maintenance. City roads were maintained by those commuters as well. Farmers cleared debris from roads and filled in holes on their way into cities to sell goods. The market handled maintenance just as well as the Government, and the cost was not higher. Sure, today we commute way too frequently to have people out patching the roads. Maintenance surely has costs, no argument here. Monopolization ensures those costs are much higher than they need to be.
Local roads and bridges were traditionally paid for by taxes, tolls and contributions of labor and materials.
Well that statement covers just about everything possible, so can't be false. You cover Government (taxes) as well as public (labor and materials) projects with no discrimination, so it really does not make any statement.
Long distance travel by car was damn near impossible before the US federal government became directly and deeply involved.
This is a false dichotomy. People traveling from New York to San Francisco did so by train because it was faster and cheaper. Cars were not driving thousands of miles, because they would break down and run out of gas on the way. We did not have massive trucks pulling massive loads, roads did not need to accommodate things that did not exist.
As cars improved in reliability and performance, cities and towns were building sturdier roads to accommodate more cars and the heavier trucks.
Where costs increased massively in the US is when the Federal Government received the power to contract out the work instead of actually doing the work. In Rome, soldiers built the roads when not fighting (in addition to fortifications, taking out the trash, digging drainage ditches, building aqueducts, etc...) so there was no "extra" costs. Government contracts are where most of the corruption exists. Smaller cities didn't have massive projects with massive budgets, and were far less susceptible to corruption.
As I state above, surely Federal Government adds some benefits to these types of projects. We have anecdote to back that, but we have at least as much anecdote to say that the Federal Government also harms these types of programs.
You really should at least attempt to study a bit of history before you spout off.
roads mainly consisted of dirt tracks (if you were lucky you might get some rocks on the side to mark where the track is)
Roads were mostly dirt because we were mostly using horses and trains for transportation. Dirt was all that was needed. In high traffic areas, like city streets, the roads were brick and stone. Because in high traffic areas brick and stone was needed. See how that works?
Lets not forget that we lacked the ability to lay and pour large amounts of concrete for roads. It was not until we had high volumes of motorized vehicles that could carry these loads that we started the Federal Highway program. And who do you think invented Concrete pouring trucks, leveling equipment, cartography, steam rollers, etc...? Hint, it was not the Government!
Your sewage example is a laughable as well. The Government could have performed a Government function of regulation, instead of taking over all of the roles directly. Most cities had city planners that did exactly that before it was taken over.
firefighting was done by volunteer groups whose main desire was to prevent their own homes from being consumed as well.
Bullshit! It was also done by community members that wanted to make sure the neighbors would help them if their houses caught fire. There can always be some self serving nature to social activities, but that does not imply that they are completely self serving. Normal humans are actually trusting and empathetic. Self serving egotists are usually called sociopaths or psychopaths. That said, I realize that the terms have been diminished and glamorized as "ruthless business person", but if the definition fits...
Well, as a long time student of Philosophy and Economics I disagree with both of those opinions at least given the sweeping generalization.
Socrates had things pegged very well in Plato's "The Republic" in terms of what a Government is supposed to be. Not perfect mind you, but very close. The USA was founded as an attempt to implement a Republic similar to how it was described. It was not very close to the ideal, but it was the closest we have seen since the book was written over 2,500 years ago.
Economies and Economics are required to function. Not what we have today mind you, think the basics of having a currency to exchange.
Where I believe people get hung up is confusing that humans will corrupt any system to gain power, with a system being corrupt by nature. Systems in many cases are fine, and we need many of these systems. Systems require vigilant monitoring and policing remove corruption.
Take the USA for example. If we could remove all of the corruption, remove many of the laws the corrupt people put into place (idea patents is an easy target), and having Police protecting our Constitutional rights, the USA would be a pretty nice place to live. At present, it can be a frightening place to live because police are not protecting the public from the corrupt, they are protecting the corrupt from the public.
The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them. If you are referring to the Highway programs, those were not Federal Government ideas. Those were citizen and business owner ideas. The program went to the Feds because it was easy at the time, and saved States from having to negotiate connecting points.
The Government may have expedited some of the process, but we don't know how much because we only implemented one Federal highway program. In other words, it's impossible to measure help or harm from the Federal program. Did it add some benefit, sure, but you can't truthfully claim that it's all because of Government.
I'm not sure how many photos you have seen from the 1800s, back before the Government handled trash pickup, but I have never seen any that show giant trash piles in every lot. As with roads, trash pickup was happening without Government intervention as well. The Government didn't come up with concepts like "If you drink water with trash in it, it's not good water", we knew that well before a take over by the Government.
Your last example is the worst. Firefighters used to be all volunteers, and many fire departments still run on a measurable percentage of volunteers. Large cities collect taxes for dedicated people, and people can choose to live there or out in the sticks where they lack the services and don't pay the premiums. Believe it or not, Firefighting has happened in communities for as long as we have had communities without Government intervention.
In all of your examples, there is not a single case where you can claim that Government is needed. You can in some cases claim it adds benefits, but at the same time it's difficult to measure how much. Road building (construction in general) has, and historically has had, significant levels of political corruption.
It's impossible to provide hundreds of pages of concept in a post, so I'll recommend you read Stephan Molyneux or listen to his podcasts on anarchism. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's good for the brain to contemplate alternative opinion.
Jon Corbett was reporting on this at least 2 years ago. Video here and articles in numerous locations. If I remember correctly, he was threatened by the DOJ and put on a no fly list for his trouble, in addition to being ignored by MSM.
I would certainly agree that exceptions are both possible and possible, and would not argue that exceptions don't exist. Very little in the world is purely black or purely white. GP at least implied that the only option was to share, and my point was that there are better alternatives.
With no qualification of your point, like "Hey, what about exceptions?" it seems like you are in agreement with the GP that the only answer is to give away your password.
Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.
I'll give you a very easy starting point if you hate sifting data, assuming you really want to look. Alex Jones has had numerous take down orders, accounts cancelled, and content banned. I don't agree with much of what he says, but at the same time I don't believe that he should be censored. He's an easy one to find information on, there there are numerous other less sensationalist people that have similar stories.
GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie. Google even publishes some of the bogus requests.
Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit? Anyone that understands the basics of statistics should have a WTF moment by looking at this graph
These are not court processes with transcripts, but enough communications can be reviewed to determine that the majority of these are not people ripping off and sharing a song or movie.
Are you seriously attempting to imply that the rare exception should justify the rule for normal behavior? I really hope not, but that's how I read what you wrote.
Your statement is based on an absolutely false assumption. You really don't have to look hard to find that most requests have nothing to do with illegal content. The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes.
No and No again.
Even if you trust someone to fix a problem, why would you trust them with your password? Set a temporary password so they can fix something, then change it back when they are done fixing. I have no idea why you would give someone the temptation, especially when there are simple safe alternatives.
No, it's not the same thing as just driving a car or having risks while driving a car.
If you want a "proper" car analogy...
Your friend needs to borrow your car. Would you make your friend a copy of your keys or give them the spares without the expectation that you get the keys back? No! You would give them your keys and expect that both the keys and car are returned later.
Sure, they could go make copies of the keys, just like someone could install a back door. If you "trust" someone you hope not.