It is beyond ironic that in a thread about poor broadband governance you recommend running Colin Powell for President.
His son Michael ran the FCC during G.W. Bush's term and had the chance to make the internet common carrier and guarantee us net neutrality. He did not do that. He sold out to the corporate interests.
What makes you think his father would be any different?
is for having an educated electorate and not about creating worker drones.
You really really need to look at the history of public education. What you're stating is more like what existed before the 20th century. Government based public education was built by the industrialists specifically to train workers.
I remember in the 90's they told EE's in school at the time about how there was going to be huge shortages of engineers in the field because of the boomers retiring.
Interesting to note how that did not come to be.
Now our politicians need to shut the hell up about needing to encourage millions to go into STEM fields.
Besides, there are over 35 million people below the poverty line in the US, that's almost the entire population of Canada. That would be a good problem to fix too.
Both China AND India have over 300 million in poverty, that's almost the population of the US.
China has a long way to go achieve the same kind of per capita economic success that the US has achieved.
Maybe they wouldn't directly put the public good ahead of profits, but they might put limiting their liability ahead of their profits.
Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.
While companies exist to make money the idea that only the government really cares about the people is a little too simplistic. Especially when you start talking into account how government entities like the NSA "care" about the people.
If you want someone to hit the ground running, hire from within.
You can also hire back people who had previously left your organization. I've done it before and the current position I'm in is back in an organization I'd left previously.
There may be some changes to absorb but people who come back do have the ability to actually hit the ground running.
Your point for 4 is no better than what was originally stated. It's still very bad monetary policy.
And for 5 you're the one spreading bullshit. The republicans have been unable to pass anything to actually get in the way of Obamacare. Sure republican governors have opted out of building exchanges but the law gave then that choice. What the law didn't do was allow insurance to be sold across state lines, which would have only required a federal exchange. It was a colossal miss by the law. Oh and the gp post is correct Obama's constant executive changing of the law is sure as hell completely illegal.
It make me strangely happy to realize that there is a Klingon Language Institute.
Re:The American Legal System's Double Standard
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Don't play the "two systems of justice in America" card on Swartz's behalf.
Why not? It only proves that even with his wealth and privilege, he wasn't granted any lenience by those in power. He wasn't powerful enough to stop them. He wasn't powerful enough to persuade MIT to get off its ass and help him out (even JSTOR settled things with him).
The fact that the line dividing us from them is moving up to the point that only fully vested ruling elite are getting protected from aggressive action is troubling.
I'm more in favor of not infringing on PETA's rights to harass hunters with drones. But I'm also in favor of the hunters destroying PETA's drones, especially if they are harassing the hunters on private land.
Also depending on the level of harassment and monitoring, I am also in favor of the hunters and fisherman pressing charges against PETA.
But news organizations far and wide are not now going to come up with any sort of agreement about what's right and proper to do when delivering the news.
Your wish is just a wish then, it can't actually happen. Not without the kind of things I was talking about being implemented.
But you are right about one thing. If the NSA says they're doing what they're doing to protect us, but then an attack happens that proves they can't protect us, then their justifications for their spying are inadequate.
They have to come down from "on high". They can initially be agreed upon by a group (when the group is small enough), but they will always trend towards having a smaller organization or a single selected leader defining them over time.
The totally decentralized and fragmented nature of news and information on the web naturally resists any incursion of those standards and values.
The people get what the people want, even if its not "good" for them. Good being defined, of course, by a select or selected few.
I extrapolated from your post. You yourself may not want censorship and just want better news sources. But I contend that the mechanisms that would be necessary to create better news sources will inevitably be utilized in an effort to achieve command and control of all news sources.
Re:"The Newsroom" summarizes the problem ...
on
The Rise of Hoax News
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The world shouldn't work like this, but it does anyway.
Then how should the world work?
I will take this decentralized, messy, sometimes inaccurate, active, energized, aggressive reporting of everything under the sun with the caveat of "reader beware" a thousand times over something that is managed by (to borrow from a meme I hate) "Top Men".
Those granted the authority to fix the stated problem in this case will always ALWAYS become corrupted and begin to limit views that do not agree with their "norms". Out of that will eventually be borne far more evil than exists in the chaotic system we have today.
Freedom is messy and I'm getting sick of Tyranny trying to market itself to us as a shiny, clean alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
It is beyond ironic that in a thread about poor broadband governance you recommend running Colin Powell for President.
His son Michael ran the FCC during G.W. Bush's term and had the chance to make the internet common carrier and guarantee us net neutrality. He did not do that. He sold out to the corporate interests.
What makes you think his father would be any different?
You know the target audience knows better and is fully aware what kind of backdoor is being talked about here.
But that audience is also filled with snarky nerds that pretty much guarantee the GP comment would be made.
Heck, I was going to make that comment myself but Gothmolly beat me to it.
is for having an educated electorate and not about creating worker drones.
You really really need to look at the history of public education. What you're stating is more like what existed before the 20th century. Government based public education was built by the industrialists specifically to train workers.
Its very well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/ne...
The question I have is: If more students took the AP Computer Science Test, would tech companies stop asking for more and more H1B visas?
and Apple too, to powerful with its digital music and its (gasp) Walled Garden.
Surely they are too large. Hoist the banners, sound the trumpets!!
I remember in the 90's they told EE's in school at the time about how there was going to be huge shortages of engineers in the field because of the boomers retiring.
Interesting to note how that did not come to be.
Now our politicians need to shut the hell up about needing to encourage millions to go into STEM fields.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Besides, there are over 35 million people below the poverty line in the US, that's almost the entire population of Canada. That would be a good problem to fix too.
Both China AND India have over 300 million in poverty, that's almost the population of the US.
China has a long way to go achieve the same kind of per capita economic success that the US has achieved.
Maybe they wouldn't directly put the public good ahead of profits, but they might put limiting their liability ahead of their profits.
Having a large accident would be a large liability for an energy company, and they would naturally take steps to avoid it.
While companies exist to make money the idea that only the government really cares about the people is a little too simplistic. Especially when you start talking into account how government entities like the NSA "care" about the people.
If you want someone to hit the ground running, hire from within.
You can also hire back people who had previously left your organization. I've done it before and the current position I'm in is back in an organization I'd left previously.
There may be some changes to absorb but people who come back do have the ability to actually hit the ground running.
I count that as wise. If you put a real IP address, it would likely get a lot of traffic.
Yeah, just ask the people with the phone number 867-5309.
It's nearly impossible to create your own gas
According to the last episode of Mythbusters, not so much.
Your point for 4 is no better than what was originally stated. It's still very bad monetary policy.
And for 5 you're the one spreading bullshit. The republicans have been unable to pass anything to actually get in the way of Obamacare. Sure republican governors have opted out of building exchanges but the law gave then that choice. What the law didn't do was allow insurance to be sold across state lines, which would have only required a federal exchange. It was a colossal miss by the law. Oh and the gp post is correct Obama's constant executive changing of the law is sure as hell completely illegal.
I have a feeling a real Klingon would kill you where you stand for that statement.
It make me strangely happy to realize that there is a Klingon Language Institute.
Don't play the "two systems of justice in America" card on Swartz's behalf.
Why not? It only proves that even with his wealth and privilege, he wasn't granted any lenience by those in power. He wasn't powerful enough to stop them. He wasn't powerful enough to persuade MIT to get off its ass and help him out (even JSTOR settled things with him).
The fact that the line dividing us from them is moving up to the point that only fully vested ruling elite are getting protected from aggressive action is troubling.
I'm not sure if that's just racism or lack of knowledge... but China has more people living in a US-level middle class than the US has people.
Both what you said and what the GP post said are true.
China may have more middle class, but they have a huge amount of population in poverty as well.
On a per capita basis, if they matched the US, their economy would be about 3 times larger than ours. The do not have that yet.
I'm more in favor of not infringing on PETA's rights to harass hunters with drones. But I'm also in favor of the hunters destroying PETA's drones, especially if they are harassing the hunters on private land.
Also depending on the level of harassment and monitoring, I am also in favor of the hunters and fisherman pressing charges against PETA.
Yeah, but I bet the string was made of cotton. You're risking things for everyone with that biological hazard there.
Dude, what you ask for is impossible.
I won't put any more words in your mouth.
But news organizations far and wide are not now going to come up with any sort of agreement about what's right and proper to do when delivering the news.
Your wish is just a wish then, it can't actually happen. Not without the kind of things I was talking about being implemented.
As a Lutheran myself, I gotta say I really like the idea of Linus nailing the source code to the church door. Spot on metaphor there.
Captain Hindsight is that you??
But you are right about one thing. If the NSA says they're doing what they're doing to protect us, but then an attack happens that proves they can't protect us, then their justifications for their spying are inadequate.
That's the rub with standards and values though.
They have to come down from "on high". They can initially be agreed upon by a group (when the group is small enough), but they will always trend towards having a smaller organization or a single selected leader defining them over time.
The totally decentralized and fragmented nature of news and information on the web naturally resists any incursion of those standards and values.
The people get what the people want, even if its not "good" for them. Good being defined, of course, by a select or selected few.
I extrapolated from your post. You yourself may not want censorship and just want better news sources. But I contend that the mechanisms that would be necessary to create better news sources will inevitably be utilized in an effort to achieve command and control of all news sources.
The world shouldn't work like this, but it does anyway.
Then how should the world work?
I will take this decentralized, messy, sometimes inaccurate, active, energized, aggressive reporting of everything under the sun with the caveat of "reader beware" a thousand times over something that is managed by (to borrow from a meme I hate) "Top Men".
Those granted the authority to fix the stated problem in this case will always ALWAYS become corrupted and begin to limit views that do not agree with their "norms". Out of that will eventually be borne far more evil than exists in the chaotic system we have today.
Freedom is messy and I'm getting sick of Tyranny trying to market itself to us as a shiny, clean alternative.
In my mind I pictured a vending machine like many pop machines.
You select your car then it clangs around through the machines inside and comes out at the opening at the bottom ... a mangled heap.
Of course not how it would really work, but a funny juxtaposition of calling these things "vending machines."
Does New Zealand have any?