Why is the right direction one common, unified standard? Doesn't having multiple standard formats prevent any one single format controller to abuse their position in the market (for example, requiring DRM in PCs that play the format)? Maybe if there was a completly free and open format (like ogg, but for video disks), then it might be OK to have one format... But being able to use multiple formats on one disk seems like a good thing.
So you are saying that an Autonomous Zone, such as YouTube, is more dominated by powerful entities such as corporations, than say network television? Are you trying to tell me that Autonomous zones such as Burning Man are more dominated by corporations than highly regulated zones such as New York's Times Square? Sorry, I think you are mistaken.
Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police. In and of themselves, corporations are not very intimidating. Corporations exercise their control by getting regulation passed that furthers their own economic interests... and then rely on the state to enforce those regulations. Regulations don't hold corporations in check, they are the tools by which corporations hold the common people in check (or smaller, less dominate corporations).
The powerful people may be able to co-opt YouTube and such, to a certain extent... but far less than they would a highly centralized, highly regulated medium. There is no single point of control, no czar, no head to take over. Any attempt to take over the medium would require brute force use of resources to out produce the massive amounts of user created content, which is far more expensive and less powerful than just bribing an elected official.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon
on
What Is Real On YouTube?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Car safety laws are designed to maintain the oligarchy of large automotive companies... They were pushed for by the big auto companies in order to make automobile development as capital intensive as possible, thereby locking out smaller competition. Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now, and there were something close to 100 American auto companies. After the consolidation of the big 3, the only "new" auto companies to compete on the U.S. market have been large foriegn companies (who are essentially one of the big established players in their own country). Even now, the U.S. keeps a lot of European small cars out of the U.S. market by insane safety regulations (which is why you can't buy a tiny little fuel efficient peugot or citron something similiar in the U.S.)
In the case of Tobacco and Liquor advertising laws, they also help the established players. New companies, smaller companies, need advertisment to compete with larger companies (which are already ubiquitous, so they don't need advertising). Advertising laws are a barrier to market for small companies, where as the large companies can afford to sponser a formula 1 racing team and have their logo all on TV (essentially skirting the law).
If you look at ANY regulation that is passed, with the exception of regulation that is essentially already a social moor (such as laws against murder, rape, etc.), they are designed for the benfit of powerful economic interests.
Re:this reminds me of an interview with ... someon
on
What Is Real On YouTube?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The people with money and power (either directly, or government apointed 'civil servants' who have defacto ownership - essentially state capitalists) are already living in a total autonomy zone. The people with money and power do what they like, when they like, and don't have to worry about any law because it doesn't apply to them.
Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy. Dumping in the oceans you say? Already happens nowadays, without any restrictions, so long as you are rich and powerful enough, or you are a government. And big corporations, or government officials, already engage in FUD campaigns both on and off line, without any restrictions.
All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful (in a political economy, effectively the same as the poor).
Many people can't afford health care under a socialist system too. If you need immediate treatment for a disease, and the waiting list is longer than your expected healthy life span without treatment, then that is essentially the same as "not being able to afford health care".
In a market system, or a socialist system, there is still a limited supply of health care that needs to be allocated to people who need it. The philosophy of socialized medicine is that it is more "ethical" for the government to allocate health care than the market, because in the market there is profit, and profit is "evil".
Socialized medicine does not garantee health care to people (the only way to do that is increase supply, and socialists are very hostile to supply side economics)... Socialized medicine is about making health care more "fair", as percieved by a certain group of government elite, not about giving health care to everyone.
The end result is that there are many people who are not getting the health care they need under government systems that promise "universal health care". Word games are not reality, and healthcare is still more available and abundant, even to the poor, in the U.S., than it is in many countries with a socialist system.
Where do you get that Europeans count underemployed ans unemployed? That is just not the case, as there is no way you could objectively figure out who is "underemployed"... the statistics would be useless.
Your perspective is a bit flawed. The U.S. is still the largest industrial producer, and largest industrial exporter. The U.S. exports vast amounts of goods and services.
The reason for a trade deficit is because Americans are consuming way more than they produce.
1. They want the government to do something to discourage the use of gasoline in order to help the enviornment. 2. They want the government to make sure gas prices are low, so they don't have to conserve on gas.
It could also be put another way:
1. Most Americans wish the government would spend more on public transit. 2. Most Americans would not take public transit, even if the government spent more on it.
Basicly, when it comes to energy, everyone wants their cake and to eat it too!
It isn't a big deal for Microsoft. It is a big deal for any company that plans to offer voice or video chat that doesn't have millions to spend on lawyers to fight patent trolls. It is a big deal for open source and non-profit software, who most of the time don't have a penny to spend on lawyers for patent trolls.
One of the effects of patent trolls is to raise the legal costs of doing buisness to the point where only big corporations like Microsoft can afford the legal costs of fighting patent trolls.
Why is profit evil? Why does something that is good (greater participation in the democratic process by young people), become bad if someone is going to profit from it?
When did profit suddenly become a bad word? Sure, people might do evil things to make a profit, but they might do evil things to get laid, or do evil things to promote a religion, or do evil things to further a political goal. Does that mean sex, religion, or politics are evil?
Because the resteraunt doesn't have time to get to know your kid... they are trying to serve the most amount of people and make them as happy as possible. You might think that your daughter is a saint, and a wonderful little bundle of joy that everyone should love to have around - but so does every other parent in the world.
True... but most people have been conditioned to think Government Regulation = Protecting the People, that there is virtually no regulation the vast majority of people will not support so long as it addresses some fear (say, Child Porn or Hate Speech or whatever).
The meaning of "GM" is: genetically altered by direct manipulation of DNA to produce commercially useful varieties that are not capable of being produced by hybridization.
This is not correct... we have been using mutation breeding for a very long time. Basicly, seeds are exposed to toxic chemicals or radiation, which damages the DNA and produces genetic mutations to create crops that can't be produced by hybridization. This has, in some shape or form, been used since the time of the Incas. Virtually all "non-GM" demesticated crops today, could not be produced by hybridization.
The only difference between mutation breeding and GM foods, is that the alteration of GM foods are delibrate (we have some understanding of what is going to happen before they are planted in the wild) - Where as with "organic" methods like mutation breeding, we are introducing geneticly modified products into the wild, and seeing what will happen. Genetic Modification was supposed to be a SAFER alternative to the standard mutation breeding.
A little bit of their GM seed blew off of trucks and onto the fields of a farmer in Canada. Monsanto found traces of GM plants on the farmers land (without his knowledge or permission, which in the U.S. we call trespassing), sued the farmer, and cost him his life savings, and he had to destroy all of his seed. He was a real farmer who rotated his fields with a variety of seeds to maintain the soil. He lost literally generations worth of seed, a devestating loss.
What you are saying is pure propoganda... The farmer in Canada didn't just have seen blow into his field, but he then replanted the seed, and then falsly signed a contract that certified he was selling licenced Monsanto product. He also signed a contract falsly certifying that he was using the Montsanto seed in order to purchase pesticides only designed to work with the Montsanto seed. He also had informed all his employees that the seed being used was official Montsanto seed.
The court in Canada EXPLICITLY said that he was not being punished for the seed blowing into his farm... he was being punished for falsifying contracts falsly claiming that he was using Montsanto seed. He was actively, and outright, falsifying contracts, and commiting criminal fraud. The case had nothing to do with GM crops.
While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?
Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?
I understand what he was "trying to do"... but I don't buy it. I think that with a lot of art, the artist is first and foremost trying to shock people, cause controversy, or get attention. Then they try to create an intellectual justification for why they are cutting a cow in half, sticking a crusifix up their anus, or playing 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.
Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with artists doing weird things to get attention. Good for them. I just don't like that I am expected to blindy believe any explaination an artist gives for their work at face value. I mean, yeah, I understand what John Cage, or one of his enablers, were saying the artwork was trying to do... but I think deep down, he just thought it would be funny to play a trick on a "sophisticated" audience and see if they called him on it.
You are ignoring his question... What if having to be standards complient means that his parents can no longer run their buisness. Sure, maybe descriptions would help with search engines, maybe... but what if it is cost prohibitive.
When you are going to destroy thousands of small buisnesses, you need to have a better comeback then "Well, making the changes to your website, which you cannot afford, would get you better search engine results (not that you will get any search engine results, because you can't afford to make those changes)".
His parent's site is search unfriendly... so what. Is that any excuse for the government, and a few greedy lawyers pretending to act on behalf of blind people to drive him out of buisness.
First of all, not all buisness websites are created by a professionals. Your local indie record store may have a website that was created by an employee, who first started auctioning rare stuff on ebay, and then moved up to creating a web site, and then to creating a web store. They just want to create an online store cheaply and easily, and do buisness. By requiring a rigid set of standards for them to obey, with potential lawsuits in the millions of dollars, you are essentially legislating them off the internet. For every big corporate site than can afford to hire professionals, there are hundreds of small buisness that can't hire professionals - and SHOULDN'T be required to hire professionals. One of the great things about the internet is the ease at which non-professionals can hop on and do buisness - That should be protected, not destroyed, which legally enforcing accessibility standards would do.
Second, sure, anyone calling themselves professional should know something about web accessibility, true... but anyone who is a professional should also know that the vast majority of corporate websites are not fully accessable. If you are a professional, you would know that you have to balance the desire of the marketing department to make half the site a big flash video, with the technical limitation of shitty browsers that don't properly display standards complient code, with the financial limitation of manpower, budget, and time, and the need to be accessible. Why shouldn't a company create a web page that is 95% accessible, and is effective as a marketing tool, and looks well in all browsers, than to force them to maintain 100% accessibility above all other priorities.
And seriously, why should the government force thousands of small buisnesses off the internet, and create hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in the economy, and force everyone to conform to a rigid design standard, to accomidate a tiny minority of people whose needs could just as easily be addressed by a better screen reader?
OK, imagine this - A buisness wants to start a web store... they hire you to do the site, because you know a bit about making 508 compliant web sites. However, since they can get sued for not being 508 compliant, and since they are outsourcing the work to you... they want you to be bonded for $5,000,000 dollars, to cover any legal costs in case the site you create isn't 508 compliant (this is not outlanding at all, this is common practice for building contracters). Of course, just because 508 is rigidly enforced now, doesn't mean that the buisness has any more budget to do a web store, so you will have to cover the costs of insurance. And of course, you will have to be bonded to cover each project you do, over a long period of time. Why don't you check out the costs that building contractors have to pay to be bonded, and tell me if you have a problem paying for that kind of thing out of your pocket?
Let me save you the trouble of looking it up... most likely, you aren't going to be able to afford to be bonded, and you won't be able to do freelance or independant contracting working building websites. A few large companies will develop, who will be able to pool resources and skill sets in order to do that kind of thing... and instead of making $100+/hour doing freelance work, you will get a job at some company making $50,000 a year salary.
In addition to that, because of the costs involved in assuring 508 compliance (not the costs of making it 508 compliant, but the costs of insuring yourself), a lot of people and small buisnesses who would have set up a simple webstore, just won't be able to afford to do so. With the risk of a million dollar lawsuit, the risks and costs are just too hight.
Also, because new technology (such as AJAX, like you mentioned), is very difficult to make 508 compliant, you are going to see a deep hesitation for any buisness to use any new technology. You are going to see a terrible stagnation in web technology. I hope you like XHTML 1.1, because that is what you are going to be using for the next 30 years if the government starts regulation web requirements.
And all of the cost and negative effects are retarded, because it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to build a voice reader than can handle non-standard sites, then to force every web site to rigidly adhere to some single standard.
What "overzealous consumption" is that? The only resource I can think of that people are "overzealously overconsuming" is fossil fuel, because there is a limited supply and it causes greenhouse emmissions. But then again, there are plenty of other forms of energy that can replace fossil fuels (primarily nuclear power, but also hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind)... the real problem with fossil fuels isn't our overconsumption of fossil fuels, but the fact that they produce CO2 emmissions when burned for energy faster than the carbon cycle can get rid of it.
But, there is not really any problem with "tonnes and tonnes of trash" being produced. Aside from energy, our production of household waste is completly sustainable. One big dump 10km x 10km x 500m could store all the unrecycled trash the human race produces for the next 500 years. We are not "running out of space" for the garbage. Even if we don't like dumping garbage (after all, no-one wants a garbage dump near them), if we eliminated carbon emmissions from power plants and automobiles and such, most likely the CO2 from burning garbage could be absorbed. Especially if we combined it with recycling of aluminum, glass, and used organic waste for compost (recycling plastic is of course utterly stupid and exists mostly to make people feel good, and to make things easier for soda companies who want to sell liquids in plastic instead of glass or metal).
Please spare us from the "overzealous comsumption" myth. There is nothing wrong with consumption. The things we consume make us happy, make our lives easier, make us more comfortable, and sometimes times make us safer and healthier. A lot of the social progress than we enjoy is because of our economic advances (for example, mass production of foods, household items, etc., combined with industrial technologies and automation that have eliminated the need for physical strength in most jobs, combined with a level of prosperity that we can afford to have children watched most of the day by specialized professionals instead of family, is pretty much why we have woman's liberation and a movement toward sexual equality. All pre-industrial and early-industrial societies have very rigid gender roles.) Consumption is great, and totally sustainable with very minor changes to our society. While it makes a lot of sense to be smarter about our consumption in some ways, no one should be expected to consume less.
With the exception of the use of fossil fuels (which actually IS a big problem), the planet is so far away from its sustainable natural limits, that there is no reason we can't increase consumption if we are smart about it. The people who are harping about reducing consumption are people with a political agenda - they want to see resources and the means of production controlled by the state, and see the lifestyles of populations centrally planned and managed by government - and so they have attached themselves to the enviornmental cause because they see it as a good way to scare people into allowing more and more government control. Government can sieze control of factories and buisnesses under the guise of "managing the enviornment", governement can then "ration" the goods and services that people consume.
Of course, giving the state total control over the means of production and total control over consumption is essentially giving the government totalitarian control - because virtually every action in a society have some economic element (try printing a newspaper to criticize the government without a supply of paper, or electricity to run the machines). And reduction of consumption by a totalitarian government doesn't do anything to protect the enviornment (just look at the vile state of the enviornment in the former soviet union, which had considerbly less consumption than the west).
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the right direction one common, unified standard? Doesn't having multiple standard formats prevent any one single format controller to abuse their position in the market (for example, requiring DRM in PCs that play the format)? Maybe if there was a completly free and open format (like ogg, but for video disks), then it might be OK to have one format... But being able to use multiple formats on one disk seems like a good thing.
So you are saying that an Autonomous Zone, such as YouTube, is more dominated by powerful entities such as corporations, than say network television? Are you trying to tell me that Autonomous zones such as Burning Man are more dominated by corporations than highly regulated zones such as New York's Times Square? Sorry, I think you are mistaken.
Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police. In and of themselves, corporations are not very intimidating. Corporations exercise their control by getting regulation passed that furthers their own economic interests... and then rely on the state to enforce those regulations. Regulations don't hold corporations in check, they are the tools by which corporations hold the common people in check (or smaller, less dominate corporations).
The powerful people may be able to co-opt YouTube and such, to a certain extent... but far less than they would a highly centralized, highly regulated medium. There is no single point of control, no czar, no head to take over. Any attempt to take over the medium would require brute force use of resources to out produce the massive amounts of user created content, which is far more expensive and less powerful than just bribing an elected official.
Car safety laws are designed to maintain the oligarchy of large automotive companies... They were pushed for by the big auto companies in order to make automobile development as capital intensive as possible, thereby locking out smaller competition. Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now, and there were something close to 100 American auto companies. After the consolidation of the big 3, the only "new" auto companies to compete on the U.S. market have been large foriegn companies (who are essentially one of the big established players in their own country). Even now, the U.S. keeps a lot of European small cars out of the U.S. market by insane safety regulations (which is why you can't buy a tiny little fuel efficient peugot or citron something similiar in the U.S.)
In the case of Tobacco and Liquor advertising laws, they also help the established players. New companies, smaller companies, need advertisment to compete with larger companies (which are already ubiquitous, so they don't need advertising). Advertising laws are a barrier to market for small companies, where as the large companies can afford to sponser a formula 1 racing team and have their logo all on TV (essentially skirting the law).
If you look at ANY regulation that is passed, with the exception of regulation that is essentially already a social moor (such as laws against murder, rape, etc.), they are designed for the benfit of powerful economic interests.
The people with money and power (either directly, or government apointed 'civil servants' who have defacto ownership - essentially state capitalists) are already living in a total autonomy zone. The people with money and power do what they like, when they like, and don't have to worry about any law because it doesn't apply to them.
Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy. Dumping in the oceans you say? Already happens nowadays, without any restrictions, so long as you are rich and powerful enough, or you are a government. And big corporations, or government officials, already engage in FUD campaigns both on and off line, without any restrictions.
All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful (in a political economy, effectively the same as the poor).
Many people can't afford health care under a socialist system too. If you need immediate treatment for a disease, and the waiting list is longer than your expected healthy life span without treatment, then that is essentially the same as "not being able to afford health care".
In a market system, or a socialist system, there is still a limited supply of health care that needs to be allocated to people who need it. The philosophy of socialized medicine is that it is more "ethical" for the government to allocate health care than the market, because in the market there is profit, and profit is "evil".
Socialized medicine does not garantee health care to people (the only way to do that is increase supply, and socialists are very hostile to supply side economics)... Socialized medicine is about making health care more "fair", as percieved by a certain group of government elite, not about giving health care to everyone.
The end result is that there are many people who are not getting the health care they need under government systems that promise "universal health care". Word games are not reality, and healthcare is still more available and abundant, even to the poor, in the U.S., than it is in many countries with a socialist system.
Where do you get that Europeans count underemployed ans unemployed? That is just not the case, as there is no way you could objectively figure out who is "underemployed"... the statistics would be useless.
Your perspective is a bit flawed. The U.S. is still the largest industrial producer, and largest industrial exporter. The U.S. exports vast amounts of goods and services.
The reason for a trade deficit is because Americans are consuming way more than they produce.
People want the following two things:
1. They want the government to do something to discourage the use of gasoline in order to help the enviornment.
2. They want the government to make sure gas prices are low, so they don't have to conserve on gas.
It could also be put another way:
1. Most Americans wish the government would spend more on public transit.
2. Most Americans would not take public transit, even if the government spent more on it.
Basicly, when it comes to energy, everyone wants their cake and to eat it too!
It isn't a big deal for Microsoft. It is a big deal for any company that plans to offer voice or video chat that doesn't have millions to spend on lawyers to fight patent trolls. It is a big deal for open source and non-profit software, who most of the time don't have a penny to spend on lawyers for patent trolls.
One of the effects of patent trolls is to raise the legal costs of doing buisness to the point where only big corporations like Microsoft can afford the legal costs of fighting patent trolls.
How TF can restricting DRM then harm consumers?
Because most media companies won't release media unless it is DRMed. So no DRM means no media.
Why is profit evil? Why does something that is good (greater participation in the democratic process by young people), become bad if someone is going to profit from it?
When did profit suddenly become a bad word? Sure, people might do evil things to make a profit, but they might do evil things to get laid, or do evil things to promote a religion, or do evil things to further a political goal. Does that mean sex, religion, or politics are evil?
Because the resteraunt doesn't have time to get to know your kid... they are trying to serve the most amount of people and make them as happy as possible. You might think that your daughter is a saint, and a wonderful little bundle of joy that everyone should love to have around - but so does every other parent in the world.
What country do you live in?
True... but most people have been conditioned to think Government Regulation = Protecting the People, that there is virtually no regulation the vast majority of people will not support so long as it addresses some fear (say, Child Porn or Hate Speech or whatever).
The meaning of "GM" is: genetically altered by direct manipulation of DNA to produce commercially useful varieties that are not capable of being produced by hybridization.
This is not correct... we have been using mutation breeding for a very long time. Basicly, seeds are exposed to toxic chemicals or radiation, which damages the DNA and produces genetic mutations to create crops that can't be produced by hybridization. This has, in some shape or form, been used since the time of the Incas. Virtually all "non-GM" demesticated crops today, could not be produced by hybridization.
The only difference between mutation breeding and GM foods, is that the alteration of GM foods are delibrate (we have some understanding of what is going to happen before they are planted in the wild) - Where as with "organic" methods like mutation breeding, we are introducing geneticly modified products into the wild, and seeing what will happen. Genetic Modification was supposed to be a SAFER alternative to the standard mutation breeding.
A little bit of their GM seed blew off of trucks and onto the fields of a farmer in Canada. Monsanto found traces of GM plants on the farmers land (without his knowledge or permission, which in the U.S. we call trespassing), sued the farmer, and cost him his life savings, and he had to destroy all of his seed. He was a real farmer who rotated his fields with a variety of seeds to maintain the soil. He lost literally generations worth of seed, a devestating loss.
What you are saying is pure propoganda... The farmer in Canada didn't just have seen blow into his field, but he then replanted the seed, and then falsly signed a contract that certified he was selling licenced Monsanto product. He also signed a contract falsly certifying that he was using the Montsanto seed in order to purchase pesticides only designed to work with the Montsanto seed. He also had informed all his employees that the seed being used was official Montsanto seed.
The court in Canada EXPLICITLY said that he was not being punished for the seed blowing into his farm... he was being punished for falsifying contracts falsly claiming that he was using Montsanto seed. He was actively, and outright, falsifying contracts, and commiting criminal fraud. The case had nothing to do with GM crops.
Yeah, but Van Allen wasn't worried about nuclear tests in the Van Allen belt, and those caused all kinds of problems.
While I would very much like the Governator return to cinema after his brilliant political career... Terminator 4? Didn't they blow up the world at the end of the last Terminator movie?
Why don't they make another Conan movie if they want to bring the Governator back?
... for the article that definitly explains why oranges are better than apples.
You do realize that the vast majority of web sites, including buisness web sites, are not designed by professionals?
I understand what he was "trying to do"... but I don't buy it. I think that with a lot of art, the artist is first and foremost trying to shock people, cause controversy, or get attention. Then they try to create an intellectual justification for why they are cutting a cow in half, sticking a crusifix up their anus, or playing 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence.
Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with artists doing weird things to get attention. Good for them. I just don't like that I am expected to blindy believe any explaination an artist gives for their work at face value. I mean, yeah, I understand what John Cage, or one of his enablers, were saying the artwork was trying to do... but I think deep down, he just thought it would be funny to play a trick on a "sophisticated" audience and see if they called him on it.
You are ignoring his question... What if having to be standards complient means that his parents can no longer run their buisness. Sure, maybe descriptions would help with search engines, maybe... but what if it is cost prohibitive.
When you are going to destroy thousands of small buisnesses, you need to have a better comeback then "Well, making the changes to your website, which you cannot afford, would get you better search engine results (not that you will get any search engine results, because you can't afford to make those changes)".
His parent's site is search unfriendly... so what. Is that any excuse for the government, and a few greedy lawyers pretending to act on behalf of blind people to drive him out of buisness.
First of all, not all buisness websites are created by a professionals. Your local indie record store may have a website that was created by an employee, who first started auctioning rare stuff on ebay, and then moved up to creating a web site, and then to creating a web store. They just want to create an online store cheaply and easily, and do buisness. By requiring a rigid set of standards for them to obey, with potential lawsuits in the millions of dollars, you are essentially legislating them off the internet. For every big corporate site than can afford to hire professionals, there are hundreds of small buisness that can't hire professionals - and SHOULDN'T be required to hire professionals. One of the great things about the internet is the ease at which non-professionals can hop on and do buisness - That should be protected, not destroyed, which legally enforcing accessibility standards would do.
Second, sure, anyone calling themselves professional should know something about web accessibility, true... but anyone who is a professional should also know that the vast majority of corporate websites are not fully accessable. If you are a professional, you would know that you have to balance the desire of the marketing department to make half the site a big flash video, with the technical limitation of shitty browsers that don't properly display standards complient code, with the financial limitation of manpower, budget, and time, and the need to be accessible. Why shouldn't a company create a web page that is 95% accessible, and is effective as a marketing tool, and looks well in all browsers, than to force them to maintain 100% accessibility above all other priorities.
And seriously, why should the government force thousands of small buisnesses off the internet, and create hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in the economy, and force everyone to conform to a rigid design standard, to accomidate a tiny minority of people whose needs could just as easily be addressed by a better screen reader?
OK, imagine this - A buisness wants to start a web store... they hire you to do the site, because you know a bit about making 508 compliant web sites. However, since they can get sued for not being 508 compliant, and since they are outsourcing the work to you... they want you to be bonded for $5,000,000 dollars, to cover any legal costs in case the site you create isn't 508 compliant (this is not outlanding at all, this is common practice for building contracters). Of course, just because 508 is rigidly enforced now, doesn't mean that the buisness has any more budget to do a web store, so you will have to cover the costs of insurance. And of course, you will have to be bonded to cover each project you do, over a long period of time. Why don't you check out the costs that building contractors have to pay to be bonded, and tell me if you have a problem paying for that kind of thing out of your pocket?
Let me save you the trouble of looking it up... most likely, you aren't going to be able to afford to be bonded, and you won't be able to do freelance or independant contracting working building websites. A few large companies will develop, who will be able to pool resources and skill sets in order to do that kind of thing... and instead of making $100+/hour doing freelance work, you will get a job at some company making $50,000 a year salary.
In addition to that, because of the costs involved in assuring 508 compliance (not the costs of making it 508 compliant, but the costs of insuring yourself), a lot of people and small buisnesses who would have set up a simple webstore, just won't be able to afford to do so. With the risk of a million dollar lawsuit, the risks and costs are just too hight.
Also, because new technology (such as AJAX, like you mentioned), is very difficult to make 508 compliant, you are going to see a deep hesitation for any buisness to use any new technology. You are going to see a terrible stagnation in web technology. I hope you like XHTML 1.1, because that is what you are going to be using for the next 30 years if the government starts regulation web requirements.
And all of the cost and negative effects are retarded, because it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to build a voice reader than can handle non-standard sites, then to force every web site to rigidly adhere to some single standard.
What "overzealous consumption" is that? The only resource I can think of that people are "overzealously overconsuming" is fossil fuel, because there is a limited supply and it causes greenhouse emmissions. But then again, there are plenty of other forms of energy that can replace fossil fuels (primarily nuclear power, but also hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind)... the real problem with fossil fuels isn't our overconsumption of fossil fuels, but the fact that they produce CO2 emmissions when burned for energy faster than the carbon cycle can get rid of it.
But, there is not really any problem with "tonnes and tonnes of trash" being produced. Aside from energy, our production of household waste is completly sustainable. One big dump 10km x 10km x 500m could store all the unrecycled trash the human race produces for the next 500 years. We are not "running out of space" for the garbage. Even if we don't like dumping garbage (after all, no-one wants a garbage dump near them), if we eliminated carbon emmissions from power plants and automobiles and such, most likely the CO2 from burning garbage could be absorbed. Especially if we combined it with recycling of aluminum, glass, and used organic waste for compost (recycling plastic is of course utterly stupid and exists mostly to make people feel good, and to make things easier for soda companies who want to sell liquids in plastic instead of glass or metal).
Please spare us from the "overzealous comsumption" myth. There is nothing wrong with consumption. The things we consume make us happy, make our lives easier, make us more comfortable, and sometimes times make us safer and healthier. A lot of the social progress than we enjoy is because of our economic advances (for example, mass production of foods, household items, etc., combined with industrial technologies and automation that have eliminated the need for physical strength in most jobs, combined with a level of prosperity that we can afford to have children watched most of the day by specialized professionals instead of family, is pretty much why we have woman's liberation and a movement toward sexual equality. All pre-industrial and early-industrial societies have very rigid gender roles.) Consumption is great, and totally sustainable with very minor changes to our society. While it makes a lot of sense to be smarter about our consumption in some ways, no one should be expected to consume less.
With the exception of the use of fossil fuels (which actually IS a big problem), the planet is so far away from its sustainable natural limits, that there is no reason we can't increase consumption if we are smart about it. The people who are harping about reducing consumption are people with a political agenda - they want to see resources and the means of production controlled by the state, and see the lifestyles of populations centrally planned and managed by government - and so they have attached themselves to the enviornmental cause because they see it as a good way to scare people into allowing more and more government control. Government can sieze control of factories and buisnesses under the guise of "managing the enviornment", governement can then "ration" the goods and services that people consume.
Of course, giving the state total control over the means of production and total control over consumption is essentially giving the government totalitarian control - because virtually every action in a society have some economic element (try printing a newspaper to criticize the government without a supply of paper, or electricity to run the machines). And reduction of consumption by a totalitarian government doesn't do anything to protect the enviornment (just look at the vile state of the enviornment in the former soviet union, which had considerbly less consumption than the west).