Unfortunately, the national government is the cause of national and local problems.
Starting 2 wars Running up almost $9 trillion in debt 20 Million illegal immigrants (great job they're doing on THAT national problem) The patriot act and a never ending procession of other erosions to our personal freedom. No Child Left Behind(talk about national government CAUSING local problems)
"a national problem: border control"
national solution: ignore problem "does it make sense for street grids in all cities and towns to be micromanaged from washington dc?"
doesn't stop them from trying to micromanage schools and businesses "does it make sense that an id issued in virginia was used to board a plane in boston on 9/11?"
As much sense as using a Federally issued ID called a passport.
If the Federal government didn't have a recent history so full of incompetence, corruption and rampant abuses of power, fewer people would object to their proposed policies.
Yeah, my doctor gets sick of me asking him all of the questions that the drug ads instruct me to. I write them all down, and when it's time to visit the doctor
"So you are one of those that thinks because I do something wrong I can't see you doing something wrong?"
Certainly not in principle.
I won't go into the Yahoo! case, because, as one other post correctly pointed out, it shouldn't even be in the same category as the others. Let's focus on the actions of Google (since we couldn't get a fair trial for MS here). I'm not willing to concede that they actually did something "wrong" in their dealings with China, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend it was somehow "bad".
My criticism of Congress is based on the relative extremities of the actions in question and the blatantly self-righteous arrogance in the tone of their accusations.
In your "Manson accuses Enron" example, mass fraud certainly pales by comparison to mass murder, but does that gap even come CLOSE to the quantum leap between starting a WAR and filtering search results(and then stating openly that you did it)? That's more like Charles Manson saying you shouldn't be able to sleep at night because you used a sexual-orientation based epithet(and then freely admitted that you did it).
What a bunch of elitist jackasses we have in the halls of Congress!
They start bloody military conflicts where thousands are killed and maimed, trample on The Constitution, run up $8 trillion in national debt for future generations to pay off, etc. etc. and then have the AUDACITY to suggest that some corporate execs should be overwhelmed with guilt about filtering search results and shutting down web pages?
"Looking at history from a clean perspective shows that the market has not failed but government has."
I agree that the government has often done more harm than good in attempting to regulate markets. However, I must point out the obvious examples of "market failures" in the form of externalities. This is hardly "imaginary".
When a company can dump the toxic waste of its production process into the environment, society bears a portion of the cost for the company's output. This leads to an artificially low market price for the goods in question. The result is that capital is misallocated to the production of this particular good (artifical shift of the supply curve). The market gets hit with an opportunity cost due to the fact that the capital in question could be put to otherwise efficient alternative use.
Regulations are required to correct this market failure. Our current government has rarely come up with "good" implementations of such regulation, and is prone to be over-zealous, but this doesn't alter the fundamental need for a mechanism to correct this real world market failure.
" . . . but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted."
The rights aren't "granted" because a wording that suggests The People have "permission" to speak freely, etc. implicitly recognizes the supreme authority of the government!
The brilliance of our Founding Fathers was exhibited when they elaborated our inherent freedoms in terms of limitations on government power rather than a wording that lists things that people are "allowed" to do. If our rights are "granted"[given] they can always be taken away. The Constitution states that our rights are inherent and that we may not be deprived of them. Gonzales and his doublespeak be damned.
"I also don't know why you assume even if he is a transplant that he's from Massachusetts"
It was an educated guess. NY or MA were by far the two highest probabilities. Then, based on the comment regarding "house hunting in NH" I figured he was a refugee fleeing from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape from there, and when I have to go to Boston I'm always anxious to get back. It just bothers me when people come into our state with this attitude and pretend that the hellhole they just escaped from was so superior to our beautiful rural state. Tourists can give us a little of their arrogant BS because they leave some of their money behind and take most of their issues back with them. When you friggin relocate here however it's time to drop the attitude and let a few of your teeth fall out.
(I'm well aware of the assholes from NY/NJ as well)
"Bumfuckville" ?
"middle of nowhere" ?
"people with money and most of their teeth" ?
With an attitude like that, you can't possibly be a native. Go back to Massachusetts where you belong. We've got enough arrogant transplants in this state already.
Indeed. There are a lot of so-called "debates" on both sides of the ocean where the supposedly representative government rams legislation down our throats, or refuses to take action, even in response to overwhelming public sentiments.
You're not the only one who recognizes this, just one of a very few.
"prevent the ability from another government agency introducing laws in the area it was set up to oversee"
Big difference between "introducing laws" and "oversight" and calling the U.S. Senate "another government agency" in comparing it to the bloody FCC is ridiculous.
When you talk about "introducing laws"(laws ==legislation) I presume that you mean implementation as opposed to some sort of suggestive effort. THAT is a power reserved for the LEGISLATIVE branch of government. Congress may pass legislation granting some power to the FCC, but "introducing laws" is not one of those powers. The FCC deserves to be whipped if it thinks it can implememnt some sort of mandate on every single hardware manufacturer in this sector.
I would say that NOT enforcing net neutrality is the thing that will stifle development of new content and services, kill innovation and erect massive barriers to entry. Failure to enact a law like this is going to hold development on that front to its "current state of affairs". Sure, Yahoo! and Google will have new offerings, but the small guy with a great idea is likely screwed. Without net neutrality, you'll make it next to impossible for a startup company offering online services, or someone competing with telecom and cable (like small ISPs or VOIP services) to compete because the big guys will always be able to make THEIR stuff superior.
Is the growth and success of the Internet primarily due to the creativity and innovation of the telecom and cable companies or is it a result of massive numbers of "end users" developing cool content and services?
"So our Taxes (for us US residents) are going to the Government (NSA included) to help secure Linux so Red Hat can sell it to us Taxpayers and make more money."
I don't know the whole story about the NSA's involvement with Linux, but I doubt that the work was done "exclusively" for Red Hat. I would also hope that any code the NSA developed for Linux was open source and freely available.
Do you think the same will be true of the NSA's work on Vista?
Unlike the parent post, I don't think that the Democrats were EVER opposed to these violations of our civil liberties, so it's not a question of having them "drop their opposition". Maybe they'll just tone down the BS they espouse in public to obscure their real agenda.
The Patriot Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-1 and had overwhelming bipartisan support in the House as well. The renewal of the PA was also passed in the spirit of bipartisanship. The authorization to "use force" to fight the war on terror (which has been used as a justification for everything from war to warrantless spying) was also passed by the two parties working together for the detriment of US citizens. Keep an eye on how these people actually VOTE and just ignore most of what they say.
No, the Democrats aren't opposed to any of this. They are just itching to get one of their own into the White House to abuse all of the power the President has acquired.
" . ..if you are a law abiding American cit[i]zen . . . then you should have nothing to worry about."
The same argument used by every emergent police state throughout history. How about we attach a sensor to your car which constantly monitors your speed, then sends out a ticket every time you exceed the posted limit? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear, right? Obviously you won't mind if big brother has free access to your PC. Just want to make sure that you don't have a piece of unlicensed software, or any audio/video clips which are unlicensed and may contain copyrighted material. We should probably have the government check through all of your removable storage as well. Must make sure that you've never had a friend burn a copy of one of his CDs for you, or copy a song or two to your MP3 player.
"The constitution is for protecting the citizens."
For protecting them against government abuses like the ones described in this news article.
You're talking about marginal profits and not aggregate profit. The local government is making a deal which guarantees that the provider has a monopoly on the market. What's wrong with them negotiating a part of the contract which mandates a rollout plan to all citizens?
So, they have the right to say "NO" but they don't have the power to negotiate if they say "YES"?
Your "other business" comparison is generally ridiculous. Although you could probably come up with some parallels, these would be the exception. What other business has a barrier to entry like the cable and telecom industry? A more appropriate parallel would be giving a convenience store exclusive rights to the market in a particular town, and allowing them to refuse to sell to anyone that isn't within 20 miles of the town center.
Local control is best. We don't need the draconian FCC enforcing the will of the empire on every town and city in the U.S.
"All "renewable" energy has an environmental cost."
"Solar panels . .." "Tidal generators will destroy ecosystems . .." "Fission power generates nuclear waste . .."
So, where does the electricity you're using to power your computer come from? Got a life-cycle hooked up to a generator under your desk? Careful! Don't you know about the butterfly effect? Your breathing and movements are causing environmental catastrophies a hundred thousand years from now!!!
There is a contingent within the so called "environMENTAList" movement that is against EVERYTHING. Everything except giving up their personal technological comforts and automobiles. I get really pissed at these people who obstruct any sort of energy project, bemoan the fate of the environment, and yet demand cheap electricity and gasoline for themselves. In my neck of the woods people are obstructing wind power projects on grounds that it will be "unsightly" and wreck the "scenery". Oh yeah, it's going to kill a few birds and bats too. Bunch of bloody whiners. Go live like an animal out in the woods, come up with an energy proposal of your own, or STFU.
I understand your perspective, but I think you underestimate the frustration and desperation of many windows users. Also, do you think there's any "harm" in it? If out one of every thousand discs got someone interested in Linux, it would be well worth the marginal distributed cost.
I was running an XP box last week and decided to by-pass the firewall for 5 minutes to check the connection speed. Within that span I got attacked twice. Once by something wanting me to visit a web site to do a critical "fix" for the computer, and by a pop-up telling me to run "regedit". Connecting an unarmored windows box to the Internet these days is like going for a swim with the sharks, and it's only getting worse. That dusty live CD from last Christmas might be tempting after a few months of downloading "critical" fixes and paying for firewall and anti-virus software and a spam filtering service.
I had my first rifle at age 10, but I had long since learned that it wasn't a "toy". I didn't get a real sniper rifle until much later however. Too bad. At age 3 I probably could have figured out that aiming at your head was a bad idea.
The U.S. is a giant regulatory padded cell that prevents proper filtering and chlorinization of the gene pool.
It's bad enough when kids are too dumb to realize that metal darts are dangerous and hot things burn your skin. It's even worse when I have to pay extra for a lawnmower with an "operator present" handle to account for the moron who would stick his hand into the blade when the motor is running.
". . . privacy is *not* guaranteed by the constitution."
Are you being sarcastic? Mocking the current government's ridiculous abuses of our rights?
I think that the 4th Amendment of The Constitution directly prohibits the government from invading your privacy.
". ..secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"
By what mechanism would your privacy be invaded such that it did not fall into the category of an "unreasonable search". If they have no REASON to search your person, house, papers and effects, shouldn't your privacy be guaranteed?
Regardless of your particular taste, I find it hard to believe that you don't see the vast majority of all albums as a few good songs immersed in garbage "filler material". Even the artists know this. If they released albums of entirely good songs, how do they decide which ones will become "singles" or "videos"? You're a rare person if you find even a handful of artists with a set of albums that all contain 90% "good" music.
I'll check out your recs, but I doubt I'll share your experience. I'll be happy if I like 10% of the songs however.
Slashdot Mirror
"NATIONAL problem versus LOCAL problem, get it?"
Unfortunately, the national government is the cause of national and local problems.
Starting 2 wars
Running up almost $9 trillion in debt
20 Million illegal immigrants (great job they're doing on THAT national problem)
The patriot act and a never ending procession of other erosions to our personal freedom.
No Child Left Behind(talk about national government CAUSING local problems)
"a national problem: border control"
national solution: ignore problem
"does it make sense for street grids in all cities and towns to be micromanaged from washington dc?"
doesn't stop them from trying to micromanage schools and businesses
"does it make sense that an id issued in virginia was used to board a plane in boston on 9/11?"
As much sense as using a Federally issued ID called a passport.
If the Federal government didn't have a recent history so full of incompetence, corruption and rampant abuses of power, fewer people would object to their proposed policies.
Yeah, my doctor gets sick of me asking him all of the questions that the drug ads instruct me to. I write them all down, and when it's time to visit the doctor
Hey Doc,
"Is Levitra right for me?"
"Could I benefit from a prescription of Nexium?"
"Which Robitussin should I take?"
"So you are one of those that thinks because I do something wrong I can't see you doing something wrong?"
Certainly not in principle.
I won't go into the Yahoo! case, because, as one other post correctly pointed out, it shouldn't even be in the same category as the others. Let's focus on the actions of Google (since we couldn't get a fair trial for MS here). I'm not willing to concede that they actually did something "wrong" in their dealings with China, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend it was somehow "bad".
My criticism of Congress is based on the relative extremities of the actions in question and the blatantly self-righteous arrogance in the tone of their accusations.
In your "Manson accuses Enron" example, mass fraud certainly pales by comparison to mass murder, but does that gap even come CLOSE to the quantum leap between starting a WAR and filtering search results(and then stating openly that you did it)? That's more like Charles Manson saying you shouldn't be able to sleep at night because you used a sexual-orientation based epithet(and then freely admitted that you did it).
What a bunch of elitist jackasses we have in the halls of Congress!
They start bloody military conflicts where thousands are killed and maimed, trample on The Constitution, run up $8 trillion in national debt for future generations to pay off, etc. etc. and then have the AUDACITY to suggest that some corporate execs should be overwhelmed with guilt about filtering search results and shutting down web pages?
"Looking at history from a clean perspective shows that the market has not failed but government has."
I agree that the government has often done more harm than good in attempting to regulate markets. However, I must point out the obvious examples of "market failures" in the form of externalities. This is hardly "imaginary".
When a company can dump the toxic waste of its production process into the environment, society bears a portion of the cost for the company's output. This leads to an artificially low market price for the goods in question. The result is that capital is misallocated to the production of this particular good (artifical shift of the supply curve). The market gets hit with an opportunity cost due to the fact that the capital in question could be put to otherwise efficient alternative use.
Regulations are required to correct this market failure. Our current government has rarely come up with "good" implementations of such regulation, and is prone to be over-zealous, but this doesn't alter the fundamental need for a mechanism to correct this real world market failure.
IAAE
I hereby DEMAND competition in the broadband market!
. . . (Final Jeopardy theme song playing for 10 years) . . .
OK Damnit, I guess I'll just buy the one service that's available to me rather than suffer through another minute of dial-up.
" . . . but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rights are granted."
The rights aren't "granted" because a wording that suggests The People have "permission" to speak freely, etc. implicitly recognizes the supreme authority of the government!
The brilliance of our Founding Fathers was exhibited when they elaborated our inherent freedoms in terms of limitations on government power rather than a wording that lists things that people are "allowed" to do. If our rights are "granted"[given] they can always be taken away. The Constitution states that our rights are inherent and that we may not be deprived of them. Gonzales and his doublespeak be damned.
"I also don't know why you assume even if he is a transplant that he's from Massachusetts"
It was an educated guess. NY or MA were by far the two highest probabilities. Then, based on the comment regarding "house hunting in NH" I figured he was a refugee fleeing from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape from there, and when I have to go to Boston I'm always anxious to get back. It just bothers me when people come into our state with this attitude and pretend that the hellhole they just escaped from was so superior to our beautiful rural state. Tourists can give us a little of their arrogant BS because they leave some of their money behind and take most of their issues back with them. When you friggin relocate here however it's time to drop the attitude and let a few of your teeth fall out.
(I'm well aware of the assholes from NY/NJ as well)
"Bumfuckville" ?
"middle of nowhere" ?
"people with money and most of their teeth" ?
With an attitude like that, you can't possibly be a native. Go back to Massachusetts where you belong. We've got enough arrogant transplants in this state already.
( *&^%#!! I think my mod points just expired)
+1 Insightful
"I always find it odd that it's called a debate"
Indeed. There are a lot of so-called "debates" on both sides of the ocean where the supposedly representative government rams legislation down our throats, or refuses to take action, even in response to overwhelming public sentiments.
You're not the only one who recognizes this, just one of a very few.
+1 on your sig as well.
"prevent the ability from another government agency introducing laws in the area it was set up to oversee"
Big difference between "introducing laws" and "oversight" and calling the U.S. Senate "another government agency" in comparing it to the bloody FCC is ridiculous.
When you talk about "introducing laws"(laws ==legislation) I presume that you mean implementation as opposed to some sort of suggestive effort. THAT is a power reserved for the LEGISLATIVE branch of government. Congress may pass legislation granting some power to the FCC, but "introducing laws" is not one of those powers. The FCC deserves to be whipped if it thinks it can implememnt some sort of mandate on every single hardware manufacturer in this sector.
I would say that NOT enforcing net neutrality is the thing that will stifle development of new content and services, kill innovation and erect massive barriers to entry. Failure to enact a law like this is going to hold development on that front to its "current state of affairs". Sure, Yahoo! and Google will have new offerings, but the small guy with a great idea is likely screwed. Without net neutrality, you'll make it next to impossible for a startup company offering online services, or someone competing with telecom and cable (like small ISPs or VOIP services) to compete because the big guys will always be able to make THEIR stuff superior.
Is the growth and success of the Internet primarily due to the creativity and innovation of the telecom and cable companies or is it a result of massive numbers of "end users" developing cool content and services?
This article is totally wrong.
I think that the year 4,390,221,065 BC was a little warmer than 2006, considering that the earth was a blob of magma at that point. (I saw it on Nova)
"So our Taxes (for us US residents) are going to the Government (NSA included) to help secure Linux so Red Hat can sell it to us Taxpayers and make more money."
I don't know the whole story about the NSA's involvement with Linux, but I doubt that the work was done "exclusively" for Red Hat. I would also hope that any code the NSA developed for Linux was open source and freely available.
Do you think the same will be true of the NSA's work on Vista?
"Why?"
Unlike the parent post, I don't think that the Democrats were EVER opposed to these violations of our civil liberties, so it's not a question of having them "drop their opposition". Maybe they'll just tone down the BS they espouse in public to obscure their real agenda.
The Patriot Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-1 and had overwhelming bipartisan support in the House as well. The renewal of the PA was also passed in the spirit of bipartisanship. The authorization to "use force" to fight the war on terror (which has been used as a justification for everything from war to warrantless spying) was also passed by the two parties working together for the detriment of US citizens. Keep an eye on how these people actually VOTE and just ignore most of what they say.
No, the Democrats aren't opposed to any of this. They are just itching to get one of their own into the White House to abuse all of the power the President has acquired.
" . . .if you are a law abiding American cit[i]zen . . . then you should have nothing to worry about."
The same argument used by every emergent police state throughout history. How about we attach a sensor to your car which constantly monitors your speed, then sends out a ticket every time you exceed the posted limit? If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear, right? Obviously you won't mind if big brother has free access to your PC. Just want to make sure that you don't have a piece of unlicensed software, or any audio/video clips which are unlicensed and may contain copyrighted material. We should probably have the government check through all of your removable storage as well. Must make sure that you've never had a friend burn a copy of one of his CDs for you, or copy a song or two to your MP3 player.
"The constitution is for protecting the citizens."
For protecting them against government abuses like the ones described in this news article.
The bitch with # 2 is . . .
(oh never mind)
No, this sucks.
You're talking about marginal profits and not aggregate profit. The local government is making a deal which guarantees that the provider has a monopoly on the market. What's wrong with them negotiating a part of the contract which mandates a rollout plan to all citizens?
So, they have the right to say "NO" but they don't have the power to negotiate if they say "YES"?
Your "other business" comparison is generally ridiculous. Although you could probably come up with some parallels, these would be the exception. What other business has a barrier to entry like the cable and telecom industry? A more appropriate parallel would be giving a convenience store exclusive rights to the market in a particular town, and allowing them to refuse to sell to anyone that isn't within 20 miles of the town center.
Local control is best. We don't need the draconian FCC enforcing the will of the empire on every town and city in the U.S.
" . . . we have already paid them to roll it out. Not just once but many times over and by multiple levels of government."
(I'm not trolling) Could you please provide some links or references to back this up?
"All "renewable" energy has an environmental cost."
." ." ."
"Solar panels . .
"Tidal generators will destroy ecosystems . .
"Fission power generates nuclear waste . .
So, where does the electricity you're using to power your computer come from? Got a life-cycle hooked up to a generator under your desk? Careful! Don't you know about the butterfly effect? Your breathing and movements are causing environmental catastrophies a hundred thousand years from now!!!
There is a contingent within the so called "environMENTAList" movement that is against EVERYTHING. Everything except giving up their personal technological comforts and automobiles. I get really pissed at these people who obstruct any sort of energy project, bemoan the fate of the environment, and yet demand cheap electricity and gasoline for themselves. In my neck of the woods people are obstructing wind power projects on grounds that it will be "unsightly" and wreck the "scenery". Oh yeah, it's going to kill a few birds and bats too. Bunch of bloody whiners. Go live like an animal out in the woods, come up with an energy proposal of your own, or STFU.
I understand your perspective, but I think you underestimate the frustration and desperation of many windows users. Also, do you think there's any "harm" in it? If out one of every thousand discs got someone interested in Linux, it would be well worth the marginal distributed cost.
I was running an XP box last week and decided to by-pass the firewall for 5 minutes to check the connection speed. Within that span I got attacked twice. Once by something wanting me to visit a web site to do a critical "fix" for the computer, and by a pop-up telling me to run "regedit". Connecting an unarmored windows box to the Internet these days is like going for a swim with the sharks, and it's only getting worse. That dusty live CD from last Christmas might be tempting after a few months of downloading "critical" fixes and paying for firewall and anti-virus software and a spam filtering service.
If that cannon came back to the market today, people would think that the rebel flag was more dangerous than the projectiles. Whiners.
I had my first rifle at age 10, but I had long since learned that it wasn't a "toy". I didn't get a real sniper rifle until much later however. Too bad. At age 3 I probably could have figured out that aiming at your head was a bad idea.
The U.S. is a giant regulatory padded cell that prevents proper filtering and chlorinization of the gene pool.
It's bad enough when kids are too dumb to realize that metal darts are dangerous and hot things burn your skin. It's even worse when I have to pay extra for a lawnmower with an "operator present" handle to account for the moron who would stick his hand into the blade when the motor is running.
". . . privacy is *not* guaranteed by the constitution."
.secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"
Are you being sarcastic? Mocking the current government's ridiculous abuses of our rights?
I think that the 4th Amendment of The Constitution directly prohibits the government from invading your privacy.
". .
By what mechanism would your privacy be invaded such that it did not fall into the category of an "unreasonable search". If they have no REASON to search your person, house, papers and effects, shouldn't your privacy be guaranteed?
Another elitist.
Regardless of your particular taste, I find it hard to believe that you don't see the vast majority of all albums as a few good songs immersed in garbage "filler material". Even the artists know this. If they released albums of entirely good songs, how do they decide which ones will become "singles" or "videos"? You're a rare person if you find even a handful of artists with a set of albums that all contain 90% "good" music.
I'll check out your recs, but I doubt I'll share your experience. I'll be happy if I like 10% of the songs however.