You're assuming that it costs the same for a municipality to give wireless to everyone as the sum of what SBC would charge all of those people individually.
To put it in other terms, the only reason cities are considering doing this is because it's so damn cheap to the point of being non-excludable. Do you really think a city-wide wifi WLAN would cost $29.99 per person per month?
You slept through economics class again, didn't you?
The reason why telephone service was regulated was not because it was the "primary method of realtime person-to-person communication" it's because phone service was believed to be a natural monopoly, meaning that costs could only be lowest with one, large firm serving everybody. But since that firm would be able to charge whatever it wanted or deny service to anyone it really felt like (it being the only firm in the market) natural monopolies must be heavily regulated to prevent that.
In theory, the inefficiency of regulation will less than either the firm would behave if totally uncontrolled or if left to competition (or outright socialization of the firm). Utilities, like water or power service for example, are ideal examples of natural monopoly -- we can't have many competing firms trying to install their own pipes or telephone poles.
Are journalists or columnists in traditional media required to register with the local authorities, pay a registration fee because they're popular, report all their costs (such as travel, meals with sources, etc), or turnover their readership (auditing of server logs) to the government so they can see who might be reading certain opinions?
No, and neither are bloggers. As many others on the this thread have pointed out, this is Yet Another Misleading Slashdot Summary -- the ordinance does not mention blogs anywhere, and only regulates spending by campaigns themselves. All it says is that any campaign has to register and report all media spending once it exceeds $1000.
What happened was somebody took this and sort of said something like "campaigns could spend money on blogs... so this ordinance regulates 'blogs'" so it sounds like the ordinance tries to regulate all blogs. No, that is not what's happening, what's happening is that local campaigns have to report all spending they do, in theory they could spend money on some blogs. So even if they did, it's not the blogs that are being regulated it's the campaign. The blogs themselves wouldn't have to report anything.
It's like saying the local police force has to track how much money they spend on bullets. So, bullets are a subset of "arms", so that means they want to regulate "arms". So, they want to "regulate arms" which is forbidden in the Constitution. It's like that children's game, playing telephone, but playing telephone with logic. It would be so easy to look up what the ordinance actually says, too, but I guess that's breaking the rules.
make judges pay a price for usurping the lawmaking powers that are NOT the province of judges.
Judges cannot write laws. They never could.
So what's happening?
The GOP talking points now dictate that what used to be called "judicial review" or "separation of powers" should now be called "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench."
It's really an homage to the power of words. All you have to do is call it "legislating" and people actually think that judges are out there writing laws. It's fucking absurd, pardon my french.
Judges have not "usurped" lawmaking powers. This is an absurdity. Judges have not and cannot write laws. All that's happened is some Republican media mouthpieces started calling Constitutionally-denoted judicial review lawmaking. That's the only thing that's changed. Judges have done not adopted any new practices of extra-constitutionally writing laws. Let's not even mention that the executive branch would also have to be extra-constitutionally enforcing these pseudo-laws -- Funny how this "separation of powers" stuff works.
See, the problem is that separation of powers gets in the way of real power -- power that the Constitution incidentally forbids. Three branches of government, checks and balances and whatnot. Apparently that all means nothing if a few propagandists changed their wording slightly.
But, let's forget all of that. What I really want to know is what exactly you mean by making judges "pay a price". What are you going to to, kick their ass? Arrest them? What?
Please fill me in. I eagerly await further enlightenment.
which of the following prominent politicians issued a threat on Thursday against any federal judge who dared oppose his wishes?
Issuing threats is for pansies. I think you'll agree that real men write laws. Wouldn't it be cool if we could make it a crime for any federal judge to not "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government"?
S.520
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.
Sponsors: Sen Shelby, Richard C. Sen Brownback, Sam Sen Burr, Richard Sen Craig, Larry E. Sen Lott, Trent
I especially am delighted with the title of the bill-- the "Constitution Restoration" Act. It's really annoying that the courts get to interpret the law and the Constitution, not the legislative branch. That should be made illegal. Only way to "restore" the Constitution. Sounds like another April Fool's joke that's not.
This, my friends, is what theocracy looks like. We have the advantage of watching it unfold before out very eyes.
While my sympathies are with you the sample sizes we're talking about here are just too small. It's not at all unlikely that two times in a row could occur by purely by chance.
What he's doing is saying that it's not entirely without merit. This is rhetorical sleight of hand.
You can make any two things sound quite the same if you just get vague enough.
Opposition to gay marriage is not entirely without merit because nothing would be entirely without merit. But if you don't think of that you just nod and smile and think he's uttered a wise truth. It isn't entirely without merit.
Look at it quantitatively.
Merit(gay marriage debate) = 0.000001 Merit(corruption of national security) = 0.4
But, you see, the gay marriage debate is not entirely without merit. Also, 2 is a number, and 3 is a number, so therefore 2 is 3.
Yeah, but John Kerry once voted against a 1500-item omnibus spending bill, two items of which were for armor four or troops! John Kerry wants to leave America undefended!
Who is to blame?
* The administration for lying? * The people for accepting the lies? * The other side for its political incompetence?
Hey, what's the worst that's going to happen? We'll only get some new apps, but not enough to destroy Microsoft and/or please you?
There is no net negative here. This can only be a good thing, and if you don't think it's good "enough" then I am interested in your definition of "enough."
Also this will let us run ASP.NET with Linux and Apache. I hate MS as much as anyone but ASP.NET absolutely kicks ass. Now all that needs to happen is for someone to define a PHP syntax for.NET and then I will know that I have died and gone to heaven:)
No, the time to buy was 6-7 years ago after Gil Amelio left, and everyone thought Apple's doom was imminent. It got as low as $6 (would be $1.50 now after two splits).
Not soon after Apple acquired NeXT, Jobs introed the iMac, and the rest ishistory.
That's a nice idea, but unrealistic. If your goal is to increase the learnedness and literacy of your society, simply saying "It's the kids' responsibility!" gets you precisely nowhere.
There are clear correlations between the influence of various teachers and teaching techniques and methods and so forth. These will, reliably, improve the results of the teaching process. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved (assuming their are statistically normally distributed).
This is especially importart because of externality effects. If a person in a society is better informed and makes better decisions, he can positively effect not only himself but those around him. The same is true for the negative side of this equation. The people around you are going to have the opportunity to participate in crime in your area, to vote for your leaders, to participate in the local economy, etc. The positive or negative effect has nothing to do with responsibility.
If someone doesn't know how to drive safely, they can very well kill not only themselves but take you out as well. Regardless of the varied responsibilities involved. Throwing your hands in the air and saying it was the driver's responsibility to drive better may be true but won't really get you any safer roads.
People really can influence their environment, and their environment really can influence them. It's sometimes satisfying to deny this, but it won't get you any closer to a better environment or happier people.
Another post from someone who's never taken a MARKETING class.
This has nothing to do with server space. Gmail would never be as popular as it is today if they hadn't used their ingenious "give these codes to all your friends!!! -- or else you can't get in" promotion. This has nothing to do with a beta stage it's a marketing promotion. Sometimes, making your product artificially scarce makes people want it more, and I for one am once again awed by Google's awesome duality of marketing and technical brilliance.
No, the problem is that big businesses have managed to free themselves of any relevant regulation. It is a felony to lie to an insurance company, yet it isn't a felony for your insurance company to lie to you, or to lie to someone else about you. Isn't that kind of absurd? A few weeks ago WalMart got in trouble for violations of labor law, and what happened as a result? They negotiated a deal where they now the Department of Labor has to notify them a week in advance if they want to have an inspection. Abuse happens when there is no accountability.
But, I noticed, that couldn't be Jon Stewart's real social security card, because the name that would appear would be his real name, which is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
Because the politics is relevant to the technology here. Specifically, politics may be standing in the way of this future-of-humanity stuff, and, well, that makes people kind of mad.
And IMO one's side's arguments (because stem cell research hasn't TOTALLY STOPPED that means the arbitrary restrictions must be OK) spur a lot of responses.
There is a significant segment of the American population that is concerned about scientists initiating the process of conception for the sole purpose of ripping apart the component stem cells while receiving federal funding to do so.
A strong majority of Americans support Nancy Reagan's call for the Bush White House to lift restrictions on stem cell research that might help to find cures for such ailments as the Alzheimer's disease that afflicted the recently deceased President Ronald Reagan, as well as other illnesses such as diabetes, Parkinson's, heart disease and multiple sclerosis. By a margin of 74 percent to 21 percent, Americans (including 79 percent of moderates and 62 percent of conservatives) say that they back the former First Lady's call for more stem cell research flexibility.
The first opinion survey of public attitudes about stem cell research to be conducted since the death of President Reagan also found that 72 percent of Americans say they are more likely in the wake of Reagan's passing to support stem cell research, including 76 percent of moderates, 64 percent of conservatives and 62 percent of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. Also, Nancy Reagan's clout in the national stem cell debate appears to have risen sharply, with 80 percent of Americans viewing her as credible on the issue, up from 65 percent in a separate survey conducted during March 2004 in 18 key states.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that it costs the same for a municipality to give wireless to everyone as the sum of what SBC would charge all of those people individually.
To put it in other terms, the only reason cities are considering doing this is because it's so damn cheap to the point of being non-excludable. Do you really think a city-wide wifi WLAN would cost $29.99 per person per month?
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
You slept through economics class again, didn't you?
The reason why telephone service was regulated was not because it was the "primary method of realtime person-to-person communication" it's because phone service was believed to be a natural monopoly , meaning that costs could only be lowest with one, large firm serving everybody. But since that firm would be able to charge whatever it wanted or deny service to anyone it really felt like (it being the only firm in the market) natural monopolies must be heavily regulated to prevent that.
In theory, the inefficiency of regulation will less than either the firm would behave if totally uncontrolled or if left to competition (or outright socialization of the firm). Utilities, like water or power service for example, are ideal examples of natural monopoly -- we can't have many competing firms trying to install their own pipes or telephone poles.
Anyway, for much more than I can describe here, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly.
Are journalists or columnists in traditional media required to register with the local authorities, pay a registration fee because they're popular, report all their costs (such as travel, meals with sources, etc), or turnover their readership (auditing of server logs) to the government so they can see who might be reading certain opinions?
No, and neither are bloggers. As many others on the this thread have pointed out, this is Yet Another Misleading Slashdot Summary -- the ordinance does not mention blogs anywhere, and only regulates spending by campaigns themselves. All it says is that any campaign has to register and report all media spending once it exceeds $1000.
What happened was somebody took this and sort of said something like "campaigns could spend money on blogs... so this ordinance regulates 'blogs'" so it sounds like the ordinance tries to regulate all blogs. No, that is not what's happening, what's happening is that local campaigns have to report all spending they do, in theory they could spend money on some blogs. So even if they did, it's not the blogs that are being regulated it's the campaign. The blogs themselves wouldn't have to report anything.
It's like saying the local police force has to track how much money they spend on bullets. So, bullets are a subset of "arms", so that means they want to regulate "arms". So, they want to "regulate arms" which is forbidden in the Constitution. It's like that children's game, playing telephone, but playing telephone with logic. It would be so easy to look up what the ordinance actually says, too, but I guess that's breaking the rules.
make judges pay a price for usurping the lawmaking powers that are NOT the province of judges.
Judges cannot write laws. They never could.
So what's happening?
The GOP talking points now dictate that what used to be called "judicial review" or "separation of powers" should now be called "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench."
It's really an homage to the power of words. All you have to do is call it "legislating" and people actually think that judges are out there writing laws. It's fucking absurd, pardon my french.
Judges have not "usurped" lawmaking powers. This is an absurdity. Judges have not and cannot write laws. All that's happened is some Republican media mouthpieces started calling Constitutionally-denoted judicial review lawmaking. That's the only thing that's changed. Judges have done not adopted any new practices of extra-constitutionally writing laws. Let's not even mention that the executive branch would also have to be extra-constitutionally enforcing these pseudo-laws -- Funny how this "separation of powers" stuff works.
See, the problem is that separation of powers gets in the way of real power -- power that the Constitution incidentally forbids. Three branches of government, checks and balances and whatnot. Apparently that all means nothing if a few propagandists changed their wording slightly.
But, let's forget all of that. What I really want to know is what exactly you mean by making judges "pay a price". What are you going to to, kick their ass? Arrest them? What?
Please fill me in. I eagerly await further enlightenment.
Issuing threats is for pansies. I think you'll agree that real men write laws. Wouldn't it be cool if we could make it a crime for any federal judge to not "acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government"?
I especially am delighted with the title of the bill-- the "Constitution Restoration" Act. It's really annoying that the courts get to interpret the law and the Constitution, not the legislative branch. That should be made illegal. Only way to "restore" the Constitution. Sounds like another April Fool's joke that's not.
This, my friends, is what theocracy looks like. We have the advantage of watching it unfold before out very eyes.
Is this one case where forking isn't a bad thing?
Which of the internets was he an expert on?
You're defining "works right" as "works 100% right". Really, if it only catches 3/4 errors then it is still very useful.
While my sympathies are with you the sample sizes we're talking about here are just too small. It's not at all unlikely that two times in a row could occur by purely by chance.
What he's doing is saying that it's not entirely without merit. This is rhetorical sleight of hand.
You can make any two things sound quite the same if you just get vague enough.
Opposition to gay marriage is not entirely without merit because nothing would be entirely without merit. But if you don't think of that you just nod and smile and think he's uttered a wise truth. It isn't entirely without merit.
Look at it quantitatively.
Merit(gay marriage debate) = 0.000001
Merit(corruption of national security) = 0.4
But, you see, the gay marriage debate is not entirely without merit. Also, 2 is a number, and 3 is a number, so therefore 2 is 3.
Yeah, but John Kerry once voted against a 1500-item omnibus spending bill, two items of which were for armor four or troops! John Kerry wants to leave America undefended!
Who is to blame?
* The administration for lying?
* The people for accepting the lies?
* The other side for its political incompetence?
Hey, what's the worst that's going to happen? We'll only get some new apps, but not enough to destroy Microsoft and/or please you?
There is no net negative here. This can only be a good thing, and if you don't think it's good "enough" then I am interested in your definition of "enough."
Also this will let us run ASP.NET with Linux and Apache. I hate MS as much as anyone but ASP.NET absolutely kicks ass. Now all that needs to happen is for someone to define a PHP syntax for .NET and then I will know that I have died and gone to heaven :)
BMW never bought Cooper, they bought Rover, and then "disposed of" most of it to Ford (apparently holding onto the rights to the brand "MINI").
No, the time to buy was 6-7 years ago after Gil Amelio left, and everyone thought Apple's doom was imminent. It got as low as $6 (would be $1.50 now after two splits).
Not soon after Apple acquired NeXT, Jobs introed the iMac, and the rest ishistory.
That's a nice idea, but unrealistic. If your goal is to increase the learnedness and literacy of your society, simply saying "It's the kids' responsibility!" gets you precisely nowhere.
There are clear correlations between the influence of various teachers and teaching techniques and methods and so forth. These will, reliably, improve the results of the teaching process. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved (assuming their are statistically normally distributed).
This is especially importart because of externality effects. If a person in a society is better informed and makes better decisions, he can positively effect not only himself but those around him. The same is true for the negative side of this equation. The people around you are going to have the opportunity to participate in crime in your area, to vote for your leaders, to participate in the local economy, etc. The positive or negative effect has nothing to do with responsibility.
If someone doesn't know how to drive safely, they can very well kill not only themselves but take you out as well. Regardless of the varied responsibilities involved. Throwing your hands in the air and saying it was the driver's responsibility to drive better may be true but won't really get you any safer roads.
People really can influence their environment, and their environment really can influence them. It's sometimes satisfying to deny this, but it won't get you any closer to a better environment or happier people.
Or perhaps the editors left it that way so that us whiners would have something to bi^Wcomplain about.
Not only that, you used ^W instead of ^H.
Obviously Yahoo is motivated by a desire to break the Microsoft/Internet Explorer/MSN SEARCH "standard"
Another post from someone who's never taken a MARKETING class.
This has nothing to do with server space. Gmail would never be as popular as it is today if they hadn't used their ingenious "give these codes to all your friends!!! -- or else you can't get in" promotion. This has nothing to do with a beta stage it's a marketing promotion. Sometimes, making your product artificially scarce makes people want it more, and I for one am once again awed by Google's awesome duality of marketing and technical brilliance.
The TV companies appear to not be so desperate to sue people into bankruptcy for watching an illicit episode of _Friends_ or _The OC_
This is because there is no "TVAA" piracy division, because historically there has never been a TV piracy problem until a couple of years ago.
Don't be impatient. Just wait a couple of years and they'll be a new member of the *AA class ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
No, the problem is that big businesses have managed to free themselves of any relevant regulation. It is a felony to lie to an insurance company, yet it isn't a felony for your insurance company to lie to you, or to lie to someone else about you. Isn't that kind of absurd? A few weeks ago WalMart got in trouble for violations of labor law, and what happened as a result? They negotiated a deal where they now the Department of Labor has to notify them a week in advance if they want to have an inspection. Abuse happens when there is no accountability.
This is a reference from yesterday's Daily Show.
But, I noticed, that couldn't be Jon Stewart's real social security card, because the name that would appear would be his real name, which is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz.
Because the politics is relevant to the technology here. Specifically, politics may be standing in the way of this future-of-humanity stuff, and, well, that makes people kind of mad.
And IMO one's side's arguments (because stem cell research hasn't TOTALLY STOPPED that means the arbitrary restrictions must be OK) spur a lot of responses.
Oh, really?