So, you're trying to convince me by giving me examples of other stupid things we've been complascent enough to let the government get away with?
But people in some other countries don't have such problems - showing that government can deliver services efficiently. The problem is that the US' political system is so totally fucked up. To do anything good, there needs to be significant government reform and accountability. Deal with that, and the government can be useful again.
Do the words "tyranny of the majority" mean anything to people anymore?
Obviously not. Seeing as you seem to misuuse the word. Where's the "tyranny" in providing infrastructure? If you are going to devalue the phrase like this, then it has lost all usefulness.
We're supposed to be a republic, not a democratic free-for-all.
According to whom? We can be whatever the hell we want to be. Why should we care what some long-dead guy thinks government should be about?
You know, you can't just win an argument by making shit up. Many countries in Europe are about to collapse under the weight of their own inflexible beaurocracy
Now who's the one making shit up? Look at places like Australia - public health care is extremely inexpensive, available to all, and of high quality. Until they started privatizing it, and industry started exploiting people for profit.
You could provide some evidence for your "collapsing under bureaucracy" remark. Also note that not all of Europe is the same. Even if some countries take it too far, doesn't mean that government-provided services are a bad idea per se. there are just as many examples of countries collapsing because of the "free market" and lack of government services. Doesn't really prove anything.
while people over here are giddily allowing us to head full speed towards the same illconceived form of government.
Geee, because the US form of government has been so perfect up until now. It's not as if much is changing to the form of government - it's just that the citizens have stopped expecting accountability from government, and lets the government get away with corruption. It has little to do with "forms of government" - but how involved people are in safeguarding the government from abuse, whichever form of government it takes.
At home, with my labrador cross, which by all standards should be a lot dumber than this cat, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
That just shows how stupid your dog is - it cares more about you and your "distractions" than itself. That's not smart, that's being easily suggestible.
In addition, during this attention seeking attempt, my children's attention is also held by the cat. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even trying to get the remote from my partner fails.
Thus demonstrating how much smarter and more attractive than you the cat is.
My terrier with one ingrown toenail runs consistently faster than this siamese at times, as the cat is often completely asleep.
Again, cat is smart, gets to spend significant amount of time sleeping and being lazy. "Productivity" is for chumps and slaves. Mind you, if your terrier decided to wake a cat, the cat could easily tear it to pieces. My cat slashed the fuck out of a large Pitbull once. Don't mess with cats.
Not at all, but let's not preted our system was ever perfect and that new technology is evil because it has flaws
But who said anything like that here? I don't recall anyone saying the system was ever perfect, or that technology is evil. There are many complaints about technology being poorly implemented and subject to political whims, but that's completely different to being opposed to technology.
Of course, PBS might look unbiased to someone swinging far to the left
In what way is PBS left-wing? if they are left wing, then why do they spend so much time shilling for conservatives, and spend so much time on Republican-manufactured talking-points?
Furthermore, the notion that Fox's "left and right" guests are balanced is totally stupid. they usually cripple any liberal-leaning debate.
In any case, journalism should be about the truth, not left-versus-right. How about analyzing the facts? Sometimes neither right nor left is correct. When do we get to hear from the people in the middle? When do we get to hear facts and analysis, instead of just competing opinions?
Fair , honest and open voting has never occured in this country except between two people deciding on what they want for dinner.
--
So, what are you saying? That we should never try to improve the system because it has had fraud in the past? Quick, race to the bottom! Embrace mediocracy, apathy and corruption! We can never better ourselves or our society, so why even try? Why even think about the problems?
The needs of the masses had to be supplied by open hardware, there was simply no other way.
Which "open hardware" are you talking about? Linux is usually run on Intel or AMD's chip platform, and sometimes on PowerPCs by Motorola or IBM. But I don't know of any modern processor designs that are actually open, and not owned by somebody. How can non-commercial organizations and individuals get the resources to start their own chip design and fabrication facilities?
Why is internet radio the right format? Because its a totally open system. Look at programs like Off The Hook for example. Thats the kind of programming that couldn't exist in a closed system,
Would you care to explain why not? And how do you define "closed"? Almost anyone can get a gig broadcasting from a public or college radio station.
Just because Clearchannel is the current monopoly, doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Ah! There is one CRUCIAL difference between internet radio and traditonal broadcast: there is no limited bandwidth for Internet radio. There CAN be 10,000 stations coming into your computer, and none of them are using a public resource -- airwaves in this case, therefore they SHOULDN'T be regulated.
Digital radio broadcasts can also massively increase the number of stations available, and the range of transmitters. So, why not use the public resource of the airwaves to its full potential. After all, it's there to be used. Seems more wasteful not to use them, as they are ideal for radio transmissions, even where there is no WiFi or internet around.
The only advantages I see of digital radio over broadcast are:
Well, firstly, digital radio is broadcast radio.
7. NO FREAKIN COMMERCIALS
Disadvantages:
1. You gotta pay
1. Why would you have to pay? Why can't free-to-air stations just switch to digital (run concurrently with analog for backward-compatibility) - like they do in other countries?
7. What's to stop them from putting commercials on digital radio?
The criteria for having the government do something should definitely not be "well, it's not far out for them to do it, so why not?" but rather "well, there's no other way to get this done so we'll have to bite the bullet and have the government handle it."
Why should that be? Because you say so?
The fact that so many people think the first is good enough is probably why the government costs the average person over half their income now, as opposed to less than a tenth in 1920.
Go and live in 1920 then. Living standards and general wealth are much higher these days, even with the government taking so much money. I'm sure there are plenty of places that charge little tax - but I'm not sure you would want to live in those places.
it makes it a bit hard to suggest we have local governments indulge us with something like free wireless when it can already be done in the private sector
Theoretically it could be done by private industry, but in reality, it is not. And it would be inefficient to have multiple competing services, instead of sharing resources. How long do we have to wait for industry to get their shit together? Just because something can be done by private industry, doesn't mean it should. After all, the government doesn't need to make a profit. With private industry you are paying a large "tax" so they make money. Why waste all that money?
and quit suggesting your neighbor be forced to chip in against her will for your luxury.
For many people it is not a luxury - it's a chance to get a step-up in life, and get some of the things that the privileged take for granted. For many people it could mean the difference between being educated and being uneducated or indoctrinated.
You explain to me how wireless internet is a basic human need that can't be provided without government intervention and I'll agree with you
Why does something need to be a basic human right for the government to be allowed to provide it?
The government wasn't originally supposed to be a device for the realization of everybody's individual notion of an ideal society.
Yeah, and your point is? It's supposed to be a device for the realization of a collective society. If people collectively want WiFi, why can't they vote to support it, just like the electorate does when they want other things? It doesn't really matter what government was "originally" intended to be - what matters is what people want today. The original founders are long dead and beyond caring.
Hell, I think everybody should have a car. That's far more useful than WiFi, especially for poor people.
not really, because it would decrease the usefulness of roads, cause massive pollution and an energy crisis.
Why not have the government buy each citizen a car?
because it's far more expensive, practical and necessary than providing WiFi. The government already provides the roads - just as the government would supply the infrastructure her, but not give you a laptop.
There's a cost to every government action, and it's not just money.
And often the benefits outweigh the costs. Just because something costs something, doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.
Maybe we should spend our collective resources on bigger issues than yuppies downloading stock reports in Starbucks on their laptops.
You mean, like providing free internet and information services to those non-yuppies who can't afford to visit Starbucks or a laptop? You know, like the point of public internet access? Do you also oppose public libraries?
Why should it happen? Do you think the government should provide internet access to everybody? (Read: should we all be forced to pool our money and buy each other internet access?
Why not? It makes a lot more sense than pooling our money to pay for nuclear weapons and war, more freeways, or to bail-out failing airlines, or to subsidize pharmaceutical companies.
Internet access is valuable to most people, where as many of the government pork is only of benefit to a limited number of people and corporations.
The government is so efficient and competent at everything else, why not, huh?
Well, governments around the world have been doing a better job than American industry in terms of providing health care and other infrastructure. Indeed, why not? the government could do this more efficiently than private companies.
Wow, what an amazingly arrogant and condescending article, that tries to shill propriety software, while appealing to "Linux kewl" and trying to say "we do it, because we care about you, dear user," at the same time as attacking users.
"Power" music consumers? Are they like Music Nazis or something? What makes the music from allofmp3.com more "powerful" anyway? I thought it was for listening to, not generating electricity.
There's a gigantic segment of blue-collar America that doesn't own a computer or know (or care) what mp3s are.
Right, they may not own a computer or know what an MP3 is, but they know what a fucking iPod is. Some people without computers even buy iPods and have their friends load it, or use a commercial iPod-loading service. Maybe you haven't been out much. I bet those people who you deride as "blue collar" know what the fuck an iPod is.
I'd bet that most Americans still haven't heard of the Ipod, and quite a few still don't know what MP3's are. To
I'd bet that more Americans know what an iPod is, than know what an MP3 is. Seriously, even Letterman makes iPod jokes. It's the most desired consumer product out there at the moment. Only people living under a rock haven't heard of the iPod. Even the President has one, it's a mass-cultural icon.
Apparently Apple believes that by taking short cuts they save money because the FOSS community will come in behind their engineers and clean up the code for them the way they did for Netscape.
What evidence do you have that Apple took "short cuts" or that they are dependent on the FOSS community to fix their mistakes? Apple's browser does very well on compliance tests, and passes some tests that others don't. What are the corners that you feel are being cut?
is exacly the reason why quality in Open Source in so high.
Open Source quality is high? Are you kidding? It may be for some of the larger server-side applications like Apache - but where the heck is the quality for the end-user? Where is the equal of Photoshop or Final Cut Pro from the Open Source world?
Yeah, that explains how scientists and computer programmers are able to turn out such beautiful products rivaling the designs of Jonathan Ive.
Do you think Ives would have any ability to create those designs, if he didn't at least know something about the science and technology of plastics - and the science and technology of computer hardware?
Sorry, you just reinforced my point. The best products are created by people who value both art and science. Those programmers and engineers who don't pay any attention to the art, are the ones making crappy products. Those who have open minds to both sides, are kicking ass.
I fully understand the advertised functionality, it just seems like a better use (since the thing has digital audio out) to dump video out that port.
Yeah, but I can't work out why you think it is a "better" use - when far more people would find the printer port useful, and very few people are interested in playing video from their computers. While millions of people need to print their documents every day.
Seems like a perfectly logical decision to me - give it a feature that's cheap, easy to use and reliable, and in strong demand - rather than spending lots of money for an expensive video adapter that maybe 0.5% of users will ever use.
I have to say this fucking article is hilarious. Hilary Rosen Blogs, gets up-close and personal with her fans!
The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap.
Isn't everything a girlfriend gives you a trap in some way or another?
MSN.com, Rhapsody.com, aolmusic.com, even walmart.com. There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks.
And I suppose you use one of these little $29 players and buy your music from Walmart.com, Hilary?
Most agree it is the best quality player on the market even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars
Why, yes they do.
I know Steve Jobs is a god.
I've got an altar in my bedroom, at which I sacrifice virgins daily. If Jobs is a God (hey, it nearly rhymes!) then it seems somewhat blasphemous to crticicize His music store on small technical details. Shouldn't the papers be screaming headlines that an actual, honest-to-Jobs deity is currently gracing this great green-and-gray Earth?
The iPod: Designed by God. Priced for mere mortals. Dare you resist?
Look, I bowed at his feet when the iPod and iTunes was created because HE GOT THE BALL ROLLING. He is as laconically casually cool as Bono and makes really good cartoon movies too
Of course! How could I be so stupid? I thought Jobs was a founder/CEO of a computer/software/electronics company, and recently the CEO of an animation studio. But I've been so blind! What really matter is that Jobs = Bono in the coolness stakes. Although to be fair, Jobs is also Keanu Reeves. After all, if he can be CEO of two wildly successful companies, then why can't he be two iconoclastic alternate-reality pop-media personae simultaneously? Of course he can, because Jobs is omnipotent.
But keeping the iTunes system a proprietary technology to prevent anyone from using multiple (read Microsoft) music systems is the most anti-consumer and user unfriendly thing any god can do.
Yes, Hilary read Microsoft. I know you do. Get paid, too.
Is this the same Jobs that railed for years about the Microsoft monopoly? Is taking a page out of their playbook the only way to have a successful business? If he isn't careful Bill Gates might just Betamax him while the crowds cheer him on.
Is being Betamaxed something like getting an Atomic Wedgie? That sounds painful, especially if done by someone named Bill.
Slashdot Mirror
But people in some other countries don't have such problems - showing that government can deliver services efficiently. The problem is that the US' political system is so totally fucked up. To do anything good, there needs to be significant government reform and accountability. Deal with that, and the government can be useful again.
Do the words "tyranny of the majority" mean anything to people anymore?
Obviously not. Seeing as you seem to misuuse the word. Where's the "tyranny" in providing infrastructure? If you are going to devalue the phrase like this, then it has lost all usefulness.
We're supposed to be a republic, not a democratic free-for-all.
According to whom? We can be whatever the hell we want to be. Why should we care what some long-dead guy thinks government should be about?
You know, you can't just win an argument by making shit up. Many countries in Europe are about to collapse under the weight of their own inflexible beaurocracy
Now who's the one making shit up? Look at places like Australia - public health care is extremely inexpensive, available to all, and of high quality. Until they started privatizing it, and industry started exploiting people for profit.
You could provide some evidence for your "collapsing under bureaucracy" remark. Also note that not all of Europe is the same. Even if some countries take it too far, doesn't mean that government-provided services are a bad idea per se. there are just as many examples of countries collapsing because of the "free market" and lack of government services. Doesn't really prove anything.
while people over here are giddily allowing us to head full speed towards the same illconceived form of government.
Geee, because the US form of government has been so perfect up until now. It's not as if much is changing to the form of government - it's just that the citizens have stopped expecting accountability from government, and lets the government get away with corruption. It has little to do with "forms of government" - but how involved people are in safeguarding the government from abuse, whichever form of government it takes.
That just shows how stupid your dog is - it cares more about you and your "distractions" than itself. That's not smart, that's being easily suggestible.
In addition, during this attention seeking attempt, my children's attention is also held by the cat. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even trying to get the remote from my partner fails.
Thus demonstrating how much smarter and more attractive than you the cat is.
My terrier with one ingrown toenail runs consistently faster than this siamese at times, as the cat is often completely asleep.
Again, cat is smart, gets to spend significant amount of time sleeping and being lazy. "Productivity" is for chumps and slaves. Mind you, if your terrier decided to wake a cat, the cat could easily tear it to pieces. My cat slashed the fuck out of a large Pitbull once. Don't mess with cats.
But who said anything like that here? I don't recall anyone saying the system was ever perfect, or that technology is evil. There are many complaints about technology being poorly implemented and subject to political whims, but that's completely different to being opposed to technology.
In what way is PBS left-wing? if they are left wing, then why do they spend so much time shilling for conservatives, and spend so much time on Republican-manufactured talking-points?
Furthermore, the notion that Fox's "left and right" guests are balanced is totally stupid. they usually cripple any liberal-leaning debate.
In any case, journalism should be about the truth, not left-versus-right. How about analyzing the facts? Sometimes neither right nor left is correct. When do we get to hear from the people in the middle? When do we get to hear facts and analysis, instead of just competing opinions?
So, what are you saying? That we should never try to improve the system because it has had fraud in the past? Quick, race to the bottom! Embrace mediocracy, apathy and corruption! We can never better ourselves or our society, so why even try? Why even think about the problems?
Is that actually a good thing, though? I'd prefer there to be fewer, better computers in the world. And fewer spam zombies.
Which "open hardware" are you talking about? Linux is usually run on Intel or AMD's chip platform, and sometimes on PowerPCs by Motorola or IBM. But I don't know of any modern processor designs that are actually open, and not owned by somebody. How can non-commercial organizations and individuals get the resources to start their own chip design and fabrication facilities?
I tried this with a local hooker, and the only darkening of the sky lasted very briefly when the blood rushed from my brain to my ... errr ... head.
Would you care to explain why not? And how do you define "closed"? Almost anyone can get a gig broadcasting from a public or college radio station.
Just because Clearchannel is the current monopoly, doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Duh. Roneo machines, Cap'n Crunch whistles and crystal radio sets, dude!
Digital radio broadcasts can also massively increase the number of stations available, and the range of transmitters. So, why not use the public resource of the airwaves to its full potential. After all, it's there to be used. Seems more wasteful not to use them, as they are ideal for radio transmissions, even where there is no WiFi or internet around.
Well, firstly, digital radio is broadcast radio.
7. NO FREAKIN COMMERCIALS Disadvantages: 1. You gotta pay
1. Why would you have to pay? Why can't free-to-air stations just switch to digital (run concurrently with analog for backward-compatibility) - like they do in other countries?
7. What's to stop them from putting commercials on digital radio?
Why should that be? Because you say so?
The fact that so many people think the first is good enough is probably why the government costs the average person over half their income now, as opposed to less than a tenth in 1920.
Go and live in 1920 then. Living standards and general wealth are much higher these days, even with the government taking so much money. I'm sure there are plenty of places that charge little tax - but I'm not sure you would want to live in those places.
it makes it a bit hard to suggest we have local governments indulge us with something like free wireless when it can already be done in the private sector
Theoretically it could be done by private industry, but in reality, it is not. And it would be inefficient to have multiple competing services, instead of sharing resources. How long do we have to wait for industry to get their shit together? Just because something can be done by private industry, doesn't mean it should. After all, the government doesn't need to make a profit. With private industry you are paying a large "tax" so they make money. Why waste all that money?
and quit suggesting your neighbor be forced to chip in against her will for your luxury.
For many people it is not a luxury - it's a chance to get a step-up in life, and get some of the things that the privileged take for granted. For many people it could mean the difference between being educated and being uneducated or indoctrinated.
Why does something need to be a basic human right for the government to be allowed to provide it?
The government wasn't originally supposed to be a device for the realization of everybody's individual notion of an ideal society.
Yeah, and your point is? It's supposed to be a device for the realization of a collective society. If people collectively want WiFi, why can't they vote to support it, just like the electorate does when they want other things? It doesn't really matter what government was "originally" intended to be - what matters is what people want today. The original founders are long dead and beyond caring.
Hell, I think everybody should have a car. That's far more useful than WiFi, especially for poor people.
not really, because it would decrease the usefulness of roads, cause massive pollution and an energy crisis.
Why not have the government buy each citizen a car?
because it's far more expensive, practical and necessary than providing WiFi. The government already provides the roads - just as the government would supply the infrastructure her, but not give you a laptop.
There's a cost to every government action, and it's not just money.
And often the benefits outweigh the costs. Just because something costs something, doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.
Maybe we should spend our collective resources on bigger issues than yuppies downloading stock reports in Starbucks on their laptops.
You mean, like providing free internet and information services to those non-yuppies who can't afford to visit Starbucks or a laptop? You know, like the point of public internet access? Do you also oppose public libraries?
Why not? It makes a lot more sense than pooling our money to pay for nuclear weapons and war, more freeways, or to bail-out failing airlines, or to subsidize pharmaceutical companies.
Internet access is valuable to most people, where as many of the government pork is only of benefit to a limited number of people and corporations.
The government is so efficient and competent at everything else, why not, huh?
Well, governments around the world have been doing a better job than American industry in terms of providing health care and other infrastructure. Indeed, why not? the government could do this more efficiently than private companies.
Wow, what an amazingly arrogant and condescending article, that tries to shill propriety software, while appealing to "Linux kewl" and trying to say "we do it, because we care about you, dear user," at the same time as attacking users.
"Power" music consumers? Are they like Music Nazis or something? What makes the music from allofmp3.com more "powerful" anyway? I thought it was for listening to, not generating electricity.
Right, they may not own a computer or know what an MP3 is, but they know what a fucking iPod is. Some people without computers even buy iPods and have their friends load it, or use a commercial iPod-loading service. Maybe you haven't been out much. I bet those people who you deride as "blue collar" know what the fuck an iPod is.
I'd bet that more Americans know what an iPod is, than know what an MP3 is. Seriously, even Letterman makes iPod jokes. It's the most desired consumer product out there at the moment. Only people living under a rock haven't heard of the iPod. Even the President has one, it's a mass-cultural icon.
What evidence do you have that Apple took "short cuts" or that they are dependent on the FOSS community to fix their mistakes? Apple's browser does very well on compliance tests, and passes some tests that others don't. What are the corners that you feel are being cut?
Open Source quality is high? Are you kidding? It may be for some of the larger server-side applications like Apache - but where the heck is the quality for the end-user? Where is the equal of Photoshop or Final Cut Pro from the Open Source world?
Do you think Ives would have any ability to create those designs, if he didn't at least know something about the science and technology of plastics - and the science and technology of computer hardware?
Sorry, you just reinforced my point. The best products are created by people who value both art and science. Those programmers and engineers who don't pay any attention to the art, are the ones making crappy products. Those who have open minds to both sides, are kicking ass.
Yeah, but I can't work out why you think it is a "better" use - when far more people would find the printer port useful, and very few people are interested in playing video from their computers. While millions of people need to print their documents every day.
Seems like a perfectly logical decision to me - give it a feature that's cheap, easy to use and reliable, and in strong demand - rather than spending lots of money for an expensive video adapter that maybe 0.5% of users will ever use.
The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap.
Isn't everything a girlfriend gives you a trap in some way or another?
MSN.com, Rhapsody.com, aolmusic.com, even walmart.com. There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks.
And I suppose you use one of these little $29 players and buy your music from Walmart.com, Hilary?
Most agree it is the best quality player on the market even if the cheapest one costs a few hundred dollars
Why, yes they do.
I know Steve Jobs is a god.
I've got an altar in my bedroom, at which I sacrifice virgins daily. If Jobs is a God (hey, it nearly rhymes!) then it seems somewhat blasphemous to crticicize His music store on small technical details. Shouldn't the papers be screaming headlines that an actual, honest-to-Jobs deity is currently gracing this great green-and-gray Earth?
The iPod: Designed by God. Priced for mere mortals. Dare you resist?
Look, I bowed at his feet when the iPod and iTunes was created because HE GOT THE BALL ROLLING. He is as laconically casually cool as Bono and makes really good cartoon movies too
Of course! How could I be so stupid? I thought Jobs was a founder/CEO of a computer/software/electronics company, and recently the CEO of an animation studio. But I've been so blind! What really matter is that Jobs = Bono in the coolness stakes. Although to be fair, Jobs is also Keanu Reeves. After all, if he can be CEO of two wildly successful companies, then why can't he be two iconoclastic alternate-reality pop-media personae simultaneously? Of course he can, because Jobs is omnipotent.
But keeping the iTunes system a proprietary technology to prevent anyone from using multiple (read Microsoft) music systems is the most anti-consumer and user unfriendly thing any god can do.
Yes, Hilary read Microsoft. I know you do. Get paid, too.
Is this the same Jobs that railed for years about the Microsoft monopoly? Is taking a page out of their playbook the only way to have a successful business? If he isn't careful Bill Gates might just Betamax him while the crowds cheer him on.
Is being Betamaxed something like getting an Atomic Wedgie? That sounds painful, especially if done by someone named Bill.
Come on Steve - open it up.
As soon as you open your legs, sweetie.
This is like being impressed that Cringely "predicted" gravity when he dropped his coffee cup and discovered that it fell to the ground. What a sage!