The problem isn't the medium, it's the content. TV COULD be a useful educational and thought provoking tool if the content wasn't such garbage. With a few exceptions, it's dumbed down moronic crap . . . an infection in our culture, and a tool wielded to brainwash the population.
Quite often when I'm "socializing" I have to escape ASAP because all people seem to want to talk about is bloody "Survivor", "CSI" or worse, professional sports. These are intelligent professional people, and it scares the hell out of me that this stuff is foremeost on their minds. Does anyone care that our nation is 8 trillion dollars in debt, involved in 2 wars, or that our personal freedoms are evaporating right in front of us? I sometimes interject a thought like this, and 2 minutes later we're back to NFL Sunday.
What would you consider to be a worse use of time than TV? Apart from actively damaging your body, staring at the blank wall would be better than TV!
"Rather than appealing to emotion, you'd do well to site some facts."
I was appealing to LOGIC. When talking about firearms control laws and their effect on crime, examining only "gun crime" data is a very poor methodology. Gun control advocates are always spewing "facts" about how few firearms-related deaths there are in places with strict gun control. A "fact", but one that definitely distorts the truth and appeals to emotion. Using this logic assumes that there is absolutely ZERO crime deterrent effect of private firearms ownership. A ridiculous assumption in a policy debate.
I fully agree that the MAJOR reason for private firearms ownership is to stop the brown shirts and goose steppers from eliminating the tattered remains of our freedom, but the right to self defense is fundamental as well.
P.S. Want some good facts about guns and overall crime rates? Check out John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime". I'd challenge anyone to cite methodological deficiencies in his data gathering, especially since his original goal was to DIS-prove the deterrent factor.
That's right mate. Look at "gun violence" as the measure of how effective your laws are in stopping crime. A favorite tactic of anti-gun nuts everywhere. The FULL picture is examining the overall level of "violent crime", not "gun crime". How many rapes, assaults, home invasions and murders by other means are you willing to accept to prevent a crime using a firearm?
FYI, anyone wishing to purchase a firearm in the U.S. has their name run through the NICS(National Instant Checks System), and having a history of mental illness, a felony record, or being under a restraining order are grounds for denial of purchase. So, using your terms, a "loony" can't legally buy a firearm.
" . ..why should racist speech be protected?"
ALL political speech should be protected. "The measure of free speech in a society is in how well unpopular speech is tolerated." Advocates speaking out for civil rights were unpopular back in the '50's and '60's. Should they have been stifled and jailed because they were saying things that the majority didn't agree with? Or is it just the fact that by your arbitrary standard, they were "right" and so-called "racists" are "wrong"?
I'll take my primitive backwater, with my firearms, and the illusion of free speech(more free than yours) over a system where I'm deprived of my right to self defense, and where people are jailed for writing books and posting messages on the Internet any day.
As your society becomes more diverse and racial tensions rise(see your neighbors across the channel), you might come to appreciate our rights of free speech and firearms ownership.
"Web services strike me as an industry with very low barriers to entry."
Never underestimate the power of a brand name.
I predicted that ebay would go down the tubes sooner rather than later for that very reason. I had to eat my words on that one. There's very little to stop someone from starting up an online auction site. The only problem is the fact that 'ebay' has a brand name and existing user base that's so pervasive that it is synonymous with the very concept of online auctioning. Good luck setting up a "successful" online auction site.
I'm not predicting that "myspace" will do the same, but there's something to be said for name recognition, and critical mass.
"Normally, I am for strict gun control (strong liberal). However, seeing what is happening to my - our - country, you just made the single strongest argument for the Second Amendment I've ever seen."
FINALLY! Some of the "strong liberals"(your label, not mine) are starting to see the light. It has always baffled me to see that such vociferous defenders of the First Amendment have been persistently willing to help destroy the Second. To them I always ask "Do you really want to give The President more power?" I think there is a strong contingent in both the traditional "left" and "right" that tend to put liberty above all else. It's a tragedy that we can't organize and put aside our minor philosophical differences to secure those liberties. I've always hoped we could get people to rally around the Libertarians.
That's about the only objective analysis I've seen of the study thus far. Come on/.ers, you're dismissing empirical evidence with suppositions and criticisms to twist the issue toward your biased viewpoint. It's easy to criticize, it's something else to come up with an idea to fix it.
How would you conduct research into answering the question posed in the article?
The only GLARING objection I see is in the failure to include expenditures on legally downloaded music in the study. Seems to suggest that all !CD_sales == illegal_sharing.
Another factor I would suggest is "Why buy a $11.99 CD when you can buy the three songs from the CD that you actually like for ~$1 each? How many times do you actually like every single song on a CD? I would contend that legal downloads are an essential component in any such study, and that there is a multiplier effect on revenue from legal downloads. I'd GUESS that it's in the range of 3X. It would be interesting to see a study of this:
(total # of songs from CD downloaded)/((# of unique downloaders) X (# of songs on CD))
"If you want to use a means of rationing other than money for the spectrum, then why not for everything else too?"
From an economics perspective, not "everything" is subject to completely inelastic supply. Normally, if demand is there, supply can react to fill that demand. Unfortunately $deity doesn't increase production based on increased consumer demand.
I'd suggest another means of rationing for any such commodity, including land, but keep capitalism around for coffee beans and widgets.
"Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush."
Wrong!
"Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election."
Wrong again!
The Republicans and Democrats have owned the House, Senate and White House for decades. Each party has also had the opportunity to control all 3 simultaneously. What have they brought us?
Vietnam War $8 Trillion national debt 2 Iraq wars GATT NAFTA The War on Drugs 20M illegal immigrants The Patriot Act
ALL with strong bi-partisan support, active or passive.
The only wasted vote is one that is cast for Republicans or Democrats! They create the illusion of choice by squabbling over nonsense issues, but work together to screw us over on the real ones. Once you realize that they are just one big party pursuing a legislative agenda that is detrimental to the vast majority of U.S. citizens the only logical thing to do is vote for an alternative.
One state came up with the brilliant idea of having each person that votes entered into a million dollar lottery. Incentive vs. compulsion.
Given the current state of affairs in the U.S., mandatory voting would be terrible. Our plurality voting system all but guarantees that the person I vote for will lose to a Republican or Democrat. I vote merely in protest.
While we're on the subject, why the hell don't we vote on the weekends? It's enough of a pain in the ass to miss time from work to even get to the polls. Encountering a frustration like one of the situations described in this article would be infuriating.
Do you really think the average idiot (or even the morons up to the first standard deviation of the intelligence bell curve) in the U.S. is going to know what you're describing or how it works?
I love the idea of a more representative voting system, but I highly doubt that people in the U.S. could even comprehend something as simple as instant-runoff voting. I've been forced to conclude that "approval voting" is the only mechanism that might possibly create a government that represents the people.
Back to the subject of technical difficulties, I think the best idea(someone already suggested this) is to use a computer system which also prints (voter-verifiable) hard copies of the ballot. Electronic votes and paper votes could then be tabulated independently. If there is some difference, the paper votes get counted by hand.
Next time someone gives you the: "If you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide"
argument in response to criticism about government spying, show them this little gadget. Then, tell them that they must therefore be willing to have one installed on their car and empower local or state police to constantly monitor the signal. Using GPS and data about speed limits on certain roads, police computers will automatically send out speeding tickets to the person whose name is on the registration whenever the sensor detects the speed of the vehicle exceeding the posted limit. We could probably balance the budgets of all 50 states in no time! Of course this mandate will only apply to the idiots who publicly espouse that viewpoint. Call it the "Big Brother" tax.
HAL wasn't evil. He was given conflicting orders that generated an H-Moebius loop corrupting his higher brain functions. This resulted in symptoms analogous to paranoia and schizophrenia in humans. He reconciled that the only way to fulfill his orders regarding concealment of information was to eliminate the human crew(I'll kill you so I don't have to tell you)
I won't vote FOR a politican based on a single issue, but there are definitely single issues that convince me NOT to vote for a person.
I would never vote for any candidate that advocates gun control, nor would I vote for a politician that supported the Patriot Act. Strong support for the war in Iraq is also a stance that would leave a politician with a 0% chance of getting my vote.
That rules out almost everyone in the 2 major parties. Vote Libertarian, Green, or independent. Supporting the Republicans or Democrats is a waste of your vote.
Seeing "Excel" on the list seemed like one of those "which of these things just doesn't belong here . . . etc."
Put that one on the list of the 12 greatest software MARKETING CAMPAIGNS of all time. I don't think that Lotus 1-2-3 really belongs on the list of the "12 greatest" either, but it should definitely be ahead of Excel based on the specified criteria. Excel may have included some new features, but I think it seems ridiculous to consider it "great" because the overall functionality overlapped 1-2-3 so closely. It was Microsoft's formidable skills in the sales and marketing arena, coupled with Lotus's apparent complacency that marginalized (annihilated?) 1-2-3 in the spreadsheet business. (Why the hell don't they port it, and their other office-like apps to Linux???)
I've never understood the allure of plastic money and ATMs, especially now that the risks involved in using them have increased so dramatically.
Why not go to the bank every couple of weeks, deal with a real live teller who asks for your ID, and conduct all of your retail transactions with cash? I always see people standing in line at the ATM between 11:00 and 1:00, waiting to get $10 for their lunch. I'm often standing behind people in the "express" lane at the grocery store watching them swipe cards and sign their names for $10 worth of stuff. Ridiculous.
Keep all your credit cards, ATM cards, SS cards, etc. at home until you absolutely need them. It would suck to lose the $100 in cash, driver's license and business cards you have with you, but it makes sense in limiting liability.
Do you honestly think that electing a FEW non-Demopublican candidates will suddenly give them absolute power to establish their political agenda? I agree that some of the Libertarian and Green party proposals are unworkable, but compared to the legislation that the two party system has put into law in the last 50 years, they sound pretty good. THAT is why we supposedly have a Democracy and Representative government. Its'a system of compromise. I'd be happy with 100 Libertarians and Greens in Congress. At least they could get their IDEAS out and give input to the legislative agenda. As it stands now, the political duopoly in DC has a single-minded agenda and "oppose" each other only on stupid issues like gay marriage and abortion. Forget the war, national debt, civil rights, trade deficit, etc.
Once you wake up and realize that Republicans == Democrats the ONLY choice is an outside candidate, and the only wasted vote is for one of the "major" parties.
One HUGELY important thing you left out of the Libertarian/Green agendas is reform of the VOTING SYSTEM. If we had an instant runoff or approval voting system like the rest of the civilized world, we could get some alternate candidates in there and instantly dispel the "wasted vote" myth.
When I ordered my satellite internet service, a company rep gathered the required information via phone. During the process, she asked me to select a username and password. I was going to use a format like "john_smith". That's not my name, and several letters had to be repeated, but I thought everything was clear. When the technician showed up to install the dish and get me set up, I learned that my new username was
Where did he get the "mutual" from? Obviously the church didn't comprehend Galileo or Copernicus, but I would say that Galileo understood their message quite clearly.
"I have no idea how you could have a genuinely open, fair, multi-party system."
Reform of the voting system would go a long way toward achieving that goal. An "approval" or some sort of "runoff" voting system could cure the people suffering from the "wasted vote"/"lesser of two evils" form of mental illness. Citizens could then elect representatives in accordance with their true preference. If a person wanted to elect candidate 'A', but really DIDN'T want candidate 'B', and figured candidate 'C' had the best chance of defeating 'B', the plurality system stifles their desire. The powerful dislike of 'B' forces someone to vote for 'C'. A reformed system would allow a person to vote according to their real belief, reflecting their support for 'A' and also their preference of 'C' over 'B'.
That isn't exactly what you were describing with your proportional voting mechanism, but the representative would certainly be more "representative" of the people in a reformed system.
Whoever coined that term should have their ass kicked. Half the problem in getting net neutrality into law is framing the debate with the idea that the Internet is basically a set of "roads" and that web sites have their data "delivered" to the end user over the "roads". It might be a compelling analogy in the first order, but it obviously breaks down rather quickly. Unfortunately, when debate proceeds like this, we net neutrality advocates are starting from a position of weakness.
"Hell, the telecom companies are "delivering" the data to the end user over the "Information Super Highway", why can't they charge extra for faster service, just like Fedex, UPS and the postal service do??"
Try purchasing a software package at a retail store and then returning it because you don't agree to the terms of the EULA. Most places won't provide you with a refund on a software package that has been opened. Then try going to the manufacturer to seek your refund. Good luck with that process too. Seriously, go out and try it. Politely ask the clerk at Circuit City if you can see a copy of the EULA before making your software purchase. Not likely.
I adore the free market, but if the business is going to operate like this, such terms need to be printed on the packages. Much the same way that food manufacturers are required to disclose the ingredients in their products so that you can make informed decisions. Imagine getting home, opening a box of breakfast cereal and seeing a note informing you that it becomes radioactive upon consumption, and that you have to take the issue up with the manufacturer.
Furthermore, there are reasonable expectations about your rights to use a software package, and clear limitations on what you can "agree" to. e.g. You can't legally accept an agreement whereby I can kick you in the head once per week so long as you are using my software.
Screw Microsoft. Just because the government is monitoring my communications doesn't mean that I want them doing it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
" . . .this is about private companies"
Bullshit! This is about PUBLIC schools. The origin of the software is irrelevant to the discussion.
Are you going to open schools up to all manners of religious dogma just because the books and software are produced by private companies?
"Both parties are just going to screw it up, we can only hope they will be distracted fighting each other and forget about us."
You've got it totally backwards. The citizens are so distracted fighting with each other that they forget about the government!
The problem isn't the medium, it's the content. TV COULD be a useful educational and thought provoking tool if the content wasn't such garbage. With a few exceptions, it's dumbed down moronic crap . . . an infection in our culture, and a tool wielded to brainwash the population.
Quite often when I'm "socializing" I have to escape ASAP because all people seem to want to talk about is bloody "Survivor", "CSI" or worse, professional sports. These are intelligent professional people, and it scares the hell out of me that this stuff is foremeost on their minds. Does anyone care that our nation is 8 trillion dollars in debt, involved in 2 wars, or that our personal freedoms are evaporating right in front of us? I sometimes interject a thought like this, and 2 minutes later we're back to NFL Sunday.
What would you consider to be a worse use of time than TV? Apart from actively damaging your body, staring at the blank wall would be better than TV!
"Rather than appealing to emotion, you'd do well to site some facts."
t anding/dp/0226493644/sr=8-1/qid=1160233557/ref=pd_ bbs_1/002-5298167-9901645?ie=UTF8&s=books
I was appealing to LOGIC. When talking about firearms control laws and their effect on crime, examining only "gun crime" data is a very poor methodology. Gun control advocates are always spewing "facts" about how few firearms-related deaths there are in places with strict gun control. A "fact", but one that definitely distorts the truth and appeals to emotion. Using this logic assumes that there is absolutely ZERO crime deterrent effect of private firearms ownership. A ridiculous assumption in a policy debate.
I fully agree that the MAJOR reason for private firearms ownership is to stop the brown shirts and goose steppers from eliminating the tattered remains of our freedom, but the right to self defense is fundamental as well.
P.S. Want some good facts about guns and overall crime rates? Check out John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime". I'd challenge anyone to cite methodological deficiencies in his data gathering, especially since his original goal was to DIS-prove the deterrent factor.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Unders
That's right mate. Look at "gun violence" as the measure of how effective your laws are in stopping crime. A favorite tactic of anti-gun nuts everywhere. The FULL picture is examining the overall level of "violent crime", not "gun crime". How many rapes, assaults, home invasions and murders by other means are you willing to accept to prevent a crime using a firearm?
.why should racist speech be protected?"
FYI, anyone wishing to purchase a firearm in the U.S. has their name run through the NICS(National Instant Checks System), and having a history of mental illness, a felony record, or being under a restraining order are grounds for denial of purchase. So, using your terms, a "loony" can't legally buy a firearm.
" . .
ALL political speech should be protected. "The measure of free speech in a society is in how well unpopular speech is tolerated." Advocates speaking out for civil rights were unpopular back in the '50's and '60's. Should they have been stifled and jailed because they were saying things that the majority didn't agree with? Or is it just the fact that by your arbitrary standard, they were "right" and so-called "racists" are "wrong"?
I'll take my primitive backwater, with my firearms, and the illusion of free speech(more free than yours) over a system where I'm deprived of my right to self defense, and where people are jailed for writing books and posting messages on the Internet any day.
As your society becomes more diverse and racial tensions rise(see your neighbors across the channel), you might come to appreciate our rights of free speech and firearms ownership.
"Web services strike me as an industry with very low barriers to entry."
Never underestimate the power of a brand name.
I predicted that ebay would go down the tubes sooner rather than later for that very reason. I had to eat my words on that one. There's very little to stop someone from starting up an online auction site. The only problem is the fact that 'ebay' has a brand name and existing user base that's so pervasive that it is synonymous with the very concept of online auctioning. Good luck setting up a "successful" online auction site.
I'm not predicting that "myspace" will do the same, but there's something to be said for name recognition, and critical mass.
"Normally, I am for strict gun control (strong liberal). However, seeing what is happening to my - our - country, you just made the single strongest argument for the Second Amendment I've ever seen."
FINALLY! Some of the "strong liberals"(your label, not mine) are starting to see the light. It has always baffled me to see that such vociferous defenders of the First Amendment have been persistently willing to help destroy the Second. To them I always ask "Do you really want to give The President more power?" I think there is a strong contingent in both the traditional "left" and "right" that tend to put liberty above all else. It's a tragedy that we can't organize and put aside our minor philosophical differences to secure those liberties. I've always hoped we could get people to rally around the Libertarians.
That's about the only objective analysis I've seen of the study thus far. Come on /.ers, you're dismissing empirical evidence with suppositions and criticisms to twist the issue toward your biased viewpoint. It's easy to criticize, it's something else to come up with an idea to fix it.
How would you conduct research into answering the question posed in the article?
The only GLARING objection I see is in the failure to include expenditures on legally downloaded music in the study. Seems to suggest that all !CD_sales == illegal_sharing.
Another factor I would suggest is "Why buy a $11.99 CD when you can buy the three songs from the CD that you actually like for ~$1 each? How many times do you actually like every single song on a CD? I would contend that legal downloads are an essential component in any such study, and that there is a multiplier effect on revenue from legal downloads. I'd GUESS that it's in the range of 3X. It would be interesting to see a study of this:
(total # of songs from CD downloaded)/((# of unique downloaders) X (# of songs on CD))
??
"If you want to use a means of rationing other than money for the spectrum, then why not for everything else too?"
From an economics perspective, not "everything" is subject to completely inelastic supply. Normally, if demand is there, supply can react to fill that demand. Unfortunately $deity doesn't increase production based on increased consumer demand.
I'd suggest another means of rationing for any such commodity, including land, but keep capitalism around for coffee beans and widgets.
"Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush."
Wrong!
"Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election."
Wrong again!
The Republicans and Democrats have owned the House, Senate and White House for decades. Each party has also had the opportunity to control all 3 simultaneously. What have they brought us?
Vietnam War
$8 Trillion national debt
2 Iraq wars
GATT
NAFTA
The War on Drugs
20M illegal immigrants
The Patriot Act
ALL with strong bi-partisan support, active or passive.
The only wasted vote is one that is cast for Republicans or Democrats! They create the illusion of choice by squabbling over nonsense issues, but work together to screw us over on the real ones. Once you realize that they are just one big party pursuing a legislative agenda that is detrimental to the vast majority of U.S. citizens the only logical thing to do is vote for an alternative.
One state came up with the brilliant idea of having each person that votes entered into a million dollar lottery. Incentive vs. compulsion.
Given the current state of affairs in the U.S., mandatory voting would be terrible. Our plurality voting system all but guarantees that the person I vote for will lose to a Republican or Democrat. I vote merely in protest.
While we're on the subject, why the hell don't we vote on the weekends? It's enough of a pain in the ass to miss time from work to even get to the polls. Encountering a frustration like one of the situations described in this article would be infuriating.
Do you really think the average idiot (or even the morons up to the first standard deviation of the intelligence bell curve) in the U.S. is going to know what you're describing or how it works?
I love the idea of a more representative voting system, but I highly doubt that people in the U.S. could even comprehend something as simple as instant-runoff voting. I've been forced to conclude that "approval voting" is the only mechanism that might possibly create a government that represents the people.
Back to the subject of technical difficulties, I think the best idea(someone already suggested this) is to use a computer system which also prints (voter-verifiable) hard copies of the ballot. Electronic votes and paper votes could then be tabulated independently. If there is some difference, the paper votes get counted by hand.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
Good one.
Bribing the people with their children's money seems to work as well.
Next time someone gives you the: "If you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide"
argument in response to criticism about government spying, show them this little gadget. Then, tell them that they must therefore be willing to have one installed on their car and empower local or state police to constantly monitor the signal. Using GPS and data about speed limits on certain roads, police computers will automatically send out speeding tickets to the person whose name is on the registration whenever the sensor detects the speed of the vehicle exceeding the posted limit. We could probably balance the budgets of all 50 states in no time! Of course this mandate will only apply to the idiots who publicly espouse that viewpoint. Call it the "Big Brother" tax.
Now that's totally unfair!!
HAL wasn't evil. He was given conflicting orders that generated an H-Moebius loop corrupting his higher brain functions. This resulted in symptoms analogous to paranoia and schizophrenia in humans. He reconciled that the only way to fulfill his orders regarding concealment of information was to eliminate the human crew(I'll kill you so I don't have to tell you)
"Also do not vote based on a single issue . . ."
I won't vote FOR a politican based on a single issue, but there are definitely single issues that convince me NOT to vote for a person.
I would never vote for any candidate that advocates gun control, nor would I vote for a politician that supported the Patriot Act. Strong support for the war in Iraq is also a stance that would leave a politician with a 0% chance of getting my vote.
That rules out almost everyone in the 2 major parties. Vote Libertarian, Green, or independent. Supporting the Republicans or Democrats is a waste of your vote.
Right.
Seeing "Excel" on the list seemed like one of those "which of these things just doesn't belong here . . . etc."
Put that one on the list of the 12 greatest software MARKETING CAMPAIGNS of all time. I don't think that Lotus 1-2-3 really belongs on the list of the "12 greatest" either, but it should definitely be ahead of Excel based on the specified criteria. Excel may have included some new features, but I think it seems ridiculous to consider it "great" because the overall functionality overlapped 1-2-3 so closely. It was Microsoft's formidable skills in the sales and marketing arena, coupled with Lotus's apparent complacency that marginalized (annihilated?) 1-2-3 in the spreadsheet business. (Why the hell don't they port it, and their other office-like apps to Linux???)
I've never understood the allure of plastic money and ATMs, especially now that the risks involved in using them have increased so dramatically.
Why not go to the bank every couple of weeks, deal with a real live teller who asks for your ID, and conduct all of your retail transactions with cash? I always see people standing in line at the ATM between 11:00 and 1:00, waiting to get $10 for their lunch. I'm often standing behind people in the "express" lane at the grocery store watching them swipe cards and sign their names for $10 worth of stuff. Ridiculous.
Keep all your credit cards, ATM cards, SS cards, etc. at home until you absolutely need them. It would suck to lose the $100 in cash, driver's license and business cards you have with you, but it makes sense in limiting liability.
Do you honestly think that electing a FEW non-Demopublican candidates will suddenly give them absolute power to establish their political agenda? I agree that some of the Libertarian and Green party proposals are unworkable, but compared to the legislation that the two party system has put into law in the last 50 years, they sound pretty good. THAT is why we supposedly have a Democracy and Representative government. Its'a system of compromise. I'd be happy with 100 Libertarians and Greens in Congress. At least they could get their IDEAS out and give input to the legislative agenda. As it stands now, the political duopoly in DC has a single-minded agenda and "oppose" each other only on stupid issues like gay marriage and abortion. Forget the war, national debt, civil rights, trade deficit, etc.
Once you wake up and realize that Republicans == Democrats the ONLY choice is an outside candidate, and the only wasted vote is for one of the "major" parties.
One HUGELY important thing you left out of the Libertarian/Green agendas is reform of the VOTING SYSTEM. If we had an instant runoff or approval voting system like the rest of the civilized world, we could get some alternate candidates in there and instantly dispel the "wasted vote" myth.
"The thread was assuming that a super AI was formed, and that they would rule over us . . . "
Maybe it's better to be ruled by artificical intelligence than by the natural stupidity that rules over us now.
When I ordered my satellite internet service, a company rep gathered the required information via phone. During the process, she asked me to select a username and password. I was going to use a format like "john_smith". That's not my name, and several letters had to be repeated, but I thought everything was clear. When the technician showed up to install the dish and get me set up, I learned that my new username was
:-)
johnunderscoresmith
Where did he get the "mutual" from? Obviously the church didn't comprehend Galileo or Copernicus, but I would say that Galileo understood their message quite clearly.
"Shut up or we'll make you sorry that you didn't"
Not too hard to comprehend.
"I have no idea how you could have a genuinely open, fair, multi-party system."
Reform of the voting system would go a long way toward achieving that goal. An "approval" or some sort of "runoff" voting system could cure the people suffering from the "wasted vote"/"lesser of two evils" form of mental illness. Citizens could then elect representatives in accordance with their true preference. If a person wanted to elect candidate 'A', but really DIDN'T want candidate 'B', and figured candidate 'C' had the best chance of defeating 'B', the plurality system stifles their desire. The powerful dislike of 'B' forces someone to vote for 'C'. A reformed system would allow a person to vote according to their real belief, reflecting their support for 'A' and also their preference of 'C' over 'B'.
That isn't exactly what you were describing with your proportional voting mechanism, but the representative would certainly be more "representative" of the people in a reformed system.
Whoever coined that term should have their ass kicked. Half the problem in getting net neutrality into law is framing the debate with the idea that the Internet is basically a set of "roads" and that web sites have their data "delivered" to the end user over the "roads". It might be a compelling analogy in the first order, but it obviously breaks down rather quickly. Unfortunately, when debate proceeds like this, we net neutrality advocates are starting from a position of weakness.
"Hell, the telecom companies are "delivering" the data to the end user over the "Information Super Highway", why can't they charge extra for faster service, just like Fedex, UPS and the postal service do??"
Try purchasing a software package at a retail store and then returning it because you don't agree to the terms of the EULA. Most places won't provide you with a refund on a software package that has been opened. Then try going to the manufacturer to seek your refund. Good luck with that process too. Seriously, go out and try it. Politely ask the clerk at Circuit City if you can see a copy of the EULA before making your software purchase. Not likely.
I adore the free market, but if the business is going to operate like this, such terms need to be printed on the packages. Much the same way that food manufacturers are required to disclose the ingredients in their products so that you can make informed decisions. Imagine getting home, opening a box of breakfast cereal and seeing a note informing you that it becomes radioactive upon consumption, and that you have to take the issue up with the manufacturer.
Furthermore, there are reasonable expectations about your rights to use a software package, and clear limitations on what you can "agree" to. e.g. You can't legally accept an agreement whereby I can kick you in the head once per week so long as you are using my software.
Screw Microsoft. Just because the government is monitoring my communications doesn't mean that I want them doing it as well.