my opponents are horribly misinformed on this issue thanks to that bombastic blowhard
Sure, other than the part where people in the current administration and congress actually are talking about Fairness Doctrine-esque riders on this legislation. Or when people working at the FCC expressly mention giving though to the FD for broadcase and web content. It's vocal, and repeated condemnation of those notions that keep them OUT of the legislation, despite the liberal urge to have them enacted.
they do not have any hesitation in opposing giving healthcare to 9/11 first responders
No, what they opposed was a bill that called for spending $11 billion without any clear explanation of what that dollar amount was chosen, or how it would be specifically spent. And - quite reaonably - many asked why a firefighter who got sick doing his job in NYC at that particular event is any more deserving than a firefighter in San Fransisco who gets sick while doing his job. That is, sick enough that people all over the country need to personally pay more taxes for more spending on those particular people in those particular situations. Why is this a federal issue, and not a New York issue? Why does a federal bill not take into account first responders everywhere in the country? How much more would that cost, if anything? Do you have the answers to those questions, as stated by the people backing the bill? Didn't think so. Neither did the people who put the brakes on that piece of legislation, and asked the Democrat controlled house and senate to answer those questions. Of course, that didn't serve Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's political agendas, so it didn't happen. Of course, you know all of that, and you're just trolling, and hoping that you can score some quick points with less-informed readers. Which makes you exactly the sort of asshat that you're claiming the Republicans are, in this case. You're cravenly using a the 9/11 responders as cheap political props. Hope that makes you feel good.
even in appearance. republicans dont even have that concern
No, they acted exactly according to principle. In this case, they wanted to know why a certain amount of new debt, borrowed from China and capriciously aimed at one group of people, was in the amount and form that it was.
Everything seems to lead to death panels when you listen to Rush and Fox.
Just like everybody who wants less government, or who is worried about heaping trillions of new debt on the bonfire that is our economy is... a racist who actively wants, as their goal in life, for poor people to be sick and die. That is, if you listen to Al Franken and MSNBC, right?
Doctors have been deregistered for far less than a TSA grope.
You mean, like, checking your prostate gland, or doing a PAP smear, or checking for mammory lumps? That sort of thing? Doctors (and TSA agents) aren't penalized for doing their job, their penalized for taking advantage of their job to personally use their position of authority to commit an actual assault. Checking for a payload of PETN in your boxers is, unfortunately, now part of the job - just like it's the doctor's job to actually hold your balls and tell you to cough.
Well, you're onto something there, other than the whole part where you need a crippling case of moral equivalency and mixed premises to come even close to making that case.
And, of course, you can turn that behavior off in XP with a minute's work... something that you'd expect anyone running a nuclear freakin' enrichment plant to take a moment to do. I have no pity, here. In fact, a certain amount of schadenfreude, considering the general asshattedness of the folks involved.
who are you to tell Siemens who they should do business with?
Well, perhaps he's a rational person who can objectively see that Iran is run by a highly belligerent, insurgency-supporting, terror-financing, arms-smuggling, mysoginistic, medieval-minded, brutally theocratic asshat of a regime willing to rig elections and kill its own protesting people in order to stay in power while it builds nuclear weapons and regularly thump its chest about wiping other countres off the map. Perhaps that's a good reason to tell people who sell sophisticated weapons manufacturing technology to not make life any easier for those clowns.
Windows considers it something that must be executed without gaining consent from or even informing the user
Well, sure, other than the part where it notifies you about the newly mounted media, and asks you if and what, if anything, you want to do with it. Or are you referring to much older and likely pirated systems that aren't being patched?
Really? The "Y2K non-event?" The only reason it was a non-event was because thousands of us put in a lot of hours making it turn out that way. I worked on a project that, if not tended to, would have been the end of the company using the software and databases in question. That would have definitely been an "event" for them and all of their employees and customers. I'm always a little perplexed by the glib dismissal of that period, but especially so here in this particular venue.
Ah. So, it's your judgement about the quality of a product that makes it OK or not to rip off instead of just walking away from it, is that it? Do you steal your lunch from places that make a less-good sandwich than the next guy?
how come it is always the little guy who has to pay?
Because the "little guy" is the one who's actually buying the services. The customer IS who pays for thing, right? Incidentally, there are plenty of non-"little guy" buyers of mobile devices and other carrier services. Some customers buy and use thousands of units and accounts. These are not "the little guy."
Why, if that is the case, do the socialist first world countries have FAR better, and CHEAPER Internet service than we do, on average?
Please be specific, and include places that have the same population densities. Even all-powerful socialist countries can't change the laws of physics. Who SHOULD pay the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to run fiber a house out in the middle of North Dakota?
Your argument isn't very good when you realize that our financial system is a closed system. If one guy earns it all, nobody else will have any.
Just on the off chance you're not trolling: if you were right, there would be no more prosperity "available" today than there was 200 years ago. In fact, there would be less, because there are more people, right?
The economic pie is NOT of a fixed size. Economies expand and contract as productivity and risk and investment and innovation change. Wealth is created, not split up into ever-smaller pieces. People who think like you are the primary thing that's wrong with the country doday.
Please specify the fair amount of profit that a person, or a company of people, should be allowed to make when selling a product or service. As an obvious corollary, if you have time, please also specify what an individual person should be allowed to make and keep at the end of a day's work. Since you obviously have a working definition of "fair," actual numbers should be simple enough for you to come up with. For example, is your paycheck fair? Would that be right amount for all people to be paid?
whose entire business model is dependent upon a neutral net.
Actually, their entire business model depends upon their customers' pipes not being completely crushed with torrent traffic generated by their customers' twelve year old neighbors ripping off movies or hosting DDoS attacks against The Man in the name of whatever cause they're backing this week because they heard that sophisticated junior high school girls dig activists.
The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
You mean like education and health care and food subsidies for their kids? Which they do get, to the tune of thousands and thousands per year per child?
The sad thing is that consumers know what they want
I'd argue that they don't, really. They know what they think the want (free stuff). But what they really want is for talented people to be making what they want in the first place. If they don't want that, then they don't want the end results, either. But because most people don't stop to think about what it takes to create (and pay for) all of the stuff by which they want to be entertained, they take some very short-sighted positions on things (like the efficacy and ethics of ripping off the entertainment they desire).
If the government can declare something "illegal"...
The government didn't wake up just yesterday and decide to declare trafficking in stolen classified documents to be illegal. The laws surrounding that sort of thing went through all of the usual legislative processes, and have been tested and refined over the years through many court cases and challenges. Why are you putting the world illegal in quotes? Because you don't think that's really a word that, in the sense that there are no laws against stealing and receiving classified information?
Wikileaks isn't for people's personal foibles - it's about malfeasance by those in power.
And only Wikileaks gets to define those things, right? And change those definitions whenever it suits them? How is identifying (in the publishing of stolen State Dept cables) an important figure in the opposition to Iran's current thugocracy of a government about malfeasance by those in power? It's exactly the opposite... it's about enjoying the power and media attention so much that you don't care if a decent person risking the wrath of the Mullahs gets hammered as a byproduct of your ego-stroking publicity stunts.
Counter-espionage actions against foreigners who you know to be spies working for another country ain't the same as burglary. Of course you know that, you trolling twit.
The numbers fail to take into account the impact of global temperatures on the local temperatures in the room where the babies are born, and completely ignores the impact of changes in the number of seagoing pirates on each of those factors. Completely irresponsible.
. Why the hell does everything need to be TV centric anymore? This is the 21st century for frak's sake.
Yup, the 21st century, with an entire upcoming generation that thinks everything should be free, on their terms. Your post reads like the classic meme:
1) Get idea for show
2) Get some online people together
3) Make the show using consumer electronics and desktop software
4) Remember to do some excellent writing
5) Post on YouTube
6) ???
7) Profit!
The thing you're missing is that the networks and studios risk piles of money up front when they launch a show. The cash has already left the barn, and it's buying talent, studio and production time, post, etc. Typically, all of that money is lost. Once in a great while, it pays back in the form of advertising sales. You're suggesting that it will pay back in $0.99 transactions (say, about $0.20 after transaction costs). You'd need 200,000 people agreeing to pay in order to gross $1m, and we haven't even touched on things like taxes, insurance, etc. If you're not selling advertising, you're going to need people to pay a lot more for their subscriptions, and you're going to have to do a lot to prevent your content from being instantly and widely ripped off.
You really can't expect the State to punish a judge for biasing a case in favor of the State, can you? br
Sure. That's what appeals courts are for, and thats why cases are overturned, and why judges sometimes have to recuse themselves, or are censured, or end up resigning when they're caught in a conflict of interest. We don't have many impeachments because the threat of them causes lots of corrections earlier in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
my opponents are horribly misinformed on this issue thanks to that bombastic blowhard
Sure, other than the part where people in the current administration and congress actually are talking about Fairness Doctrine-esque riders on this legislation. Or when people working at the FCC expressly mention giving though to the FD for broadcase and web content. It's vocal, and repeated condemnation of those notions that keep them OUT of the legislation, despite the liberal urge to have them enacted.
they do not have any hesitation in opposing giving healthcare to 9/11 first responders
No, what they opposed was a bill that called for spending $11 billion without any clear explanation of what that dollar amount was chosen, or how it would be specifically spent. And - quite reaonably - many asked why a firefighter who got sick doing his job in NYC at that particular event is any more deserving than a firefighter in San Fransisco who gets sick while doing his job. That is, sick enough that people all over the country need to personally pay more taxes for more spending on those particular people in those particular situations. Why is this a federal issue, and not a New York issue? Why does a federal bill not take into account first responders everywhere in the country? How much more would that cost, if anything? Do you have the answers to those questions, as stated by the people backing the bill? Didn't think so. Neither did the people who put the brakes on that piece of legislation, and asked the Democrat controlled house and senate to answer those questions. Of course, that didn't serve Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's political agendas, so it didn't happen. Of course, you know all of that, and you're just trolling, and hoping that you can score some quick points with less-informed readers. Which makes you exactly the sort of asshat that you're claiming the Republicans are, in this case. You're cravenly using a the 9/11 responders as cheap political props. Hope that makes you feel good.
even in appearance. republicans dont even have that concern
No, they acted exactly according to principle. In this case, they wanted to know why a certain amount of new debt, borrowed from China and capriciously aimed at one group of people, was in the amount and form that it was.
Is it just me
... a racist who actively wants, as their goal in life, for poor people to be sick and die. That is, if you listen to Al Franken and MSNBC, right?
Yes, it's just you.
Everything seems to lead to death panels when you listen to Rush and Fox.
Just like everybody who wants less government, or who is worried about heaping trillions of new debt on the bonfire that is our economy is
Doctors have been deregistered for far less than a TSA grope.
You mean, like, checking your prostate gland, or doing a PAP smear, or checking for mammory lumps? That sort of thing? Doctors (and TSA agents) aren't penalized for doing their job, their penalized for taking advantage of their job to personally use their position of authority to commit an actual assault. Checking for a payload of PETN in your boxers is, unfortunately, now part of the job - just like it's the doctor's job to actually hold your balls and tell you to cough.
The TSA breaks the law every time it gropes someone under 18 without their parents permission, or under 16 with their permission.
Which also makes all doctors and nurses criminals. Because just like the TSA, they're only in it for the gropes, right?
Well, you're onto something there, other than the whole part where you need a crippling case of moral equivalency and mixed premises to come even close to making that case.
And, of course, you can turn that behavior off in XP with a minute's work ... something that you'd expect anyone running a nuclear freakin' enrichment plant to take a moment to do. I have no pity, here. In fact, a certain amount of schadenfreude, considering the general asshattedness of the folks involved.
who are you to tell Siemens who they should do business with?
Well, perhaps he's a rational person who can objectively see that Iran is run by a highly belligerent, insurgency-supporting, terror-financing, arms-smuggling, mysoginistic, medieval-minded, brutally theocratic asshat of a regime willing to rig elections and kill its own protesting people in order to stay in power while it builds nuclear weapons and regularly thump its chest about wiping other countres off the map. Perhaps that's a good reason to tell people who sell sophisticated weapons manufacturing technology to not make life any easier for those clowns.
Windows considers it something that must be executed without gaining consent from or even informing the user
Well, sure, other than the part where it notifies you about the newly mounted media, and asks you if and what, if anything, you want to do with it. Or are you referring to much older and likely pirated systems that aren't being patched?
Really? The "Y2K non-event?" The only reason it was a non-event was because thousands of us put in a lot of hours making it turn out that way. I worked on a project that, if not tended to, would have been the end of the company using the software and databases in question. That would have definitely been an "event" for them and all of their employees and customers. I'm always a little perplexed by the glib dismissal of that period, but especially so here in this particular venue.
fake art
Ah. So, it's your judgement about the quality of a product that makes it OK or not to rip off instead of just walking away from it, is that it? Do you steal your lunch from places that make a less-good sandwich than the next guy?
how come it is always the little guy who has to pay?
Because the "little guy" is the one who's actually buying the services. The customer IS who pays for thing, right? Incidentally, there are plenty of non-"little guy" buyers of mobile devices and other carrier services. Some customers buy and use thousands of units and accounts. These are not "the little guy."
Why, if that is the case, do the socialist first world countries have FAR better, and CHEAPER Internet service than we do, on average?
Please be specific, and include places that have the same population densities. Even all-powerful socialist countries can't change the laws of physics. Who SHOULD pay the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to run fiber a house out in the middle of North Dakota?
Your argument isn't very good when you realize that our financial system is a closed system. If one guy earns it all, nobody else will have any.
Just on the off chance you're not trolling: if you were right, there would be no more prosperity "available" today than there was 200 years ago. In fact, there would be less, because there are more people, right?
The economic pie is NOT of a fixed size. Economies expand and contract as productivity and risk and investment and innovation change. Wealth is created, not split up into ever-smaller pieces. People who think like you are the primary thing that's wrong with the country doday.
their profits to a fair and reasonable level
Please specify the fair amount of profit that a person, or a company of people, should be allowed to make when selling a product or service. As an obvious corollary, if you have time, please also specify what an individual person should be allowed to make and keep at the end of a day's work. Since you obviously have a working definition of "fair," actual numbers should be simple enough for you to come up with. For example, is your paycheck fair? Would that be right amount for all people to be paid?
whose entire business model is dependent upon a neutral net.
Actually, their entire business model depends upon their customers' pipes not being completely crushed with torrent traffic generated by their customers' twelve year old neighbors ripping off movies or hosting DDoS attacks against The Man in the name of whatever cause they're backing this week because they heard that sophisticated junior high school girls dig activists.
Hollywood hasn't had an ORIGINAL idea in decades
Out of curiosity, have you seen Inception?
The ones who work under the table make so little that they would probably qualify for the tax credits and other services given to the working poor if they were legit.
You mean like education and health care and food subsidies for their kids? Which they do get, to the tune of thousands and thousands per year per child?
The sad thing is that consumers know what they want
I'd argue that they don't, really. They know what they think the want (free stuff). But what they really want is for talented people to be making what they want in the first place. If they don't want that, then they don't want the end results, either. But because most people don't stop to think about what it takes to create (and pay for) all of the stuff by which they want to be entertained, they take some very short-sighted positions on things (like the efficacy and ethics of ripping off the entertainment they desire).
If the government can declare something "illegal" ...
The government didn't wake up just yesterday and decide to declare trafficking in stolen classified documents to be illegal. The laws surrounding that sort of thing went through all of the usual legislative processes, and have been tested and refined over the years through many court cases and challenges. Why are you putting the world illegal in quotes? Because you don't think that's really a word that, in the sense that there are no laws against stealing and receiving classified information?
Wikileaks isn't for people's personal foibles - it's about malfeasance by those in power.
... it's about enjoying the power and media attention so much that you don't care if a decent person risking the wrath of the Mullahs gets hammered as a byproduct of your ego-stroking publicity stunts.
And only Wikileaks gets to define those things, right? And change those definitions whenever it suits them? How is identifying (in the publishing of stolen State Dept cables) an important figure in the opposition to Iran's current thugocracy of a government about malfeasance by those in power? It's exactly the opposite
burglarizing houses
Counter-espionage actions against foreigners who you know to be spies working for another country ain't the same as burglary. Of course you know that, you trolling twit.
The numbers fail to take into account the impact of global temperatures on the local temperatures in the room where the babies are born, and completely ignores the impact of changes in the number of seagoing pirates on each of those factors. Completely irresponsible.
. Why the hell does everything need to be TV centric anymore? This is the 21st century for frak's sake.
Yup, the 21st century, with an entire upcoming generation that thinks everything should be free, on their terms. Your post reads like the classic meme:
1) Get idea for show
2) Get some online people together
3) Make the show using consumer electronics and desktop software
4) Remember to do some excellent writing
5) Post on YouTube
6) ???
7) Profit!
The thing you're missing is that the networks and studios risk piles of money up front when they launch a show. The cash has already left the barn, and it's buying talent, studio and production time, post, etc. Typically, all of that money is lost. Once in a great while, it pays back in the form of advertising sales. You're suggesting that it will pay back in $0.99 transactions (say, about $0.20 after transaction costs). You'd need 200,000 people agreeing to pay in order to gross $1m, and we haven't even touched on things like taxes, insurance, etc. If you're not selling advertising, you're going to need people to pay a lot more for their subscriptions, and you're going to have to do a lot to prevent your content from being instantly and widely ripped off.
You really can't expect the State to punish a judge for biasing a case in favor of the State, can you?
br Sure. That's what appeals courts are for, and thats why cases are overturned, and why judges sometimes have to recuse themselves, or are censured, or end up resigning when they're caught in a conflict of interest. We don't have many impeachments because the threat of them causes lots of corrections earlier in the process.
And what if they aren't?
That's appeals courts are for. And if it's bad enough, that's what impeachments and (depending on the venue) judicial elections are for.