The issue isn't the publishers, the issue is the copyright holders who are difficult to contact. The publishers are actually on board.
The problem is that google wants the courts to assign rights to them that belong to someone else - but no one knows exactly who that someone is. There was a class action that said, "Hey I could be that someone - give me some money." And google said ok, but only if this class represents all the someones. The court doesn't think that because a class sued google that they can assign rights to google of people who may not have known they were supposed to be part of that class.
BTW does anyone what happens legally to a copyright a company owns but doesn't know they own when said company goes bankrupt?
I believe they're part of the companies assets that gets liquidated in bankruptcy court. It's similar to what happens if the bank that holds your mortgage goes under.
Like Custer's valiant last stand at Little Big Horn, how America is at it's root a "Christian Nation," and that the pilgrims and the indians got together and sang kumbaya on the first thanksgiving?
if you don't actually watch the comet explode, but try to develop a model you're not doing science either
Just to clarify, science must rely on observation - you don't actually have to be the guy watching the experiment to do science.
For an interesting edge case vis-a-vis observation, consider Einstein. Some of his important predictions were only observed and confirmed well after the theory was established, sometimes well after he died (e.g. frame dragging). Does that mean that Einstein wasn't a scientist? Hardly. But this is so much more the exception than the rule that we can carve out a special case for him.
Experimentation and observation are necessary, but not sufficient for an activity to be science. (Note: experimentation can include so-called "natural experiments" a la darwin)
I'm not excluding observation - if you don't actually watch the comet explode, but try to develop a model you're not doing science either - i.e. my post wasn't science.
Under no circumstances is saying, "I say a comet explode" science. There are tons of comets, and you have to give us some idea of why this one exploded - even if you were just watching on a whim I bet you have some data you can use to piece together a theory. Was the tail getting brighter immediately before the exploded, did the comet just emerge from a planetary shadow, can you calculate the trajectory and determine if it's ever passed the sun without incident? Saying that an apple fell from a tree is really mundane observation. Noticing, for the first time, that the all objects accelerate toward the ground at a constant rate is a pretty phenomenal scientific discovery.
evolution is also not science
Really? What kind of experiment did you perform on your comet watching expedition that makes you so sure it's science? More important than the double-blind experiment is the theoretical framework. Science absolutely must have either explanatory power or must make a general statement. "Some comets explode" isn't science. "Some comets with composition x explode when heated" is. "All comets contain water even though I don't know why" is also science. "Some birds have big beaks" isn't science. "Some birds evolved large beaks when presented an abundance of hard nuts" is.
What do you hunt with? I'm by no means a fire arms expert, but I'd guess that the high powered rifle you use packs a bit more punch than a 1880 colt peacemaker.
Because Wyatt Earp was nothing if not particular about the singular form of Latin nouns.
Little known fact: the battle of the OK Coral actually started over an argument of whether octopi or octopuses was correct. (Earp went with octopuses.)
Saying I saw a comet explode as it neared the sun is getting close because now you're hypothesizing that the sun had something to do with it.
Saying, "the comet exploded due to the melting of water ice as it neared the sun, similar comets should explode as they near the sun as water ice appears to be a fundamental structural element" is science because now you're making testable and falsifiable statements about the comets in general. Now scientific community didn't have to see your comet, they just have to see a comet with similar conditions.
All we have to do is wait for a comet that matches your description fly close to the sun and see if the same thing happens again. What's more future observers can do more detailed observation and get a better sense of the comets composition before it explodes - maybe it wasn't water but thermal stresses due to heating of dissimilar materials that broke it up, but because you made a scientific statement, now the scientific community knows at least to watch for comets as they get near the sun, because something interesting might happen. Even if you're wrong, it's still science. This is important, the public ought to realize that science is a process, not The Ultimate Truth.
It gets a touch harder with historical sciences like evolution, "the raptor evolved into the chicken," is a scientific statement because I can test it with DNA for example, but I can't say why evolution chose that particular course, nor can I say if under the same conditions something resembling a raptor will evolve into something resembling a chicken. What I can say is that the two are related and when I make my Jurassic Park lets use chicken DNA instead of african frog DNA to fill in the missing pieces, it's a closer match and if anything is going to work chicken DNA will (also chickens don't spontaneously change sex - although I am concerned with the possibility of raptors with wings.)
The hallmark of science is the development of models that yield useful information, but the only way to know if the model is right is to test it - which is why Popper and everyone else is so obsessed with falsifiability.
I think you're a little too picky about your definition of science.
You don't need to do a double blind experiment for your observations to become science. Geology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology are definitely science even if we can't try out two different methods of creating granite, initiating the big bang, or applying selective pressures to dinosaurs. Likewise with climate science. You're dealt a problem with a long history and a series of facts. Now try to figure out what will happen if variable x changes. Just because changes are harder to observe than dropping apples doesn't mean there isn't science to be had.
In medicine, the caveat is always "assuming our study represents a random sample of the population." Which is almost never true. Finding different results in different populations with high levels of confidence is easy, figuring out how those two populations differ is hard. In this way medicine suffers from the same problems as economics and political science - but because they're steeped in observation and statistics they are science. It's just that science sometimes isn't as unambiguous as we might like - and the only reason we ever started thinking that science was unambiguous was because our entire scientific education consists of a series of neatly solved problems and contrived experiments. Now that I know how, I can make brass really easily - but once upon a time a metallurgist couldn't figure out why he'd add the same amount of the same rocks to copper every time and sometimes he'd get nice hard brass and other times he'd get crappy contaminated copper (the reason is the concentration of zinc in ore is variable).
First, of all if there is such a state law anywhere in the country, I doubt it's in Nevada.
Second of all, rape victims have something like 10 years to press charges (granted the longer the delay the less likely there will be a conviction or even investigation.)
Third, trials are still heard by juries, and if a reasonable person would assume the alleged victim gave consent, you can bet the jury won't convict.
This sounds like a campus safety presentation gone off the tracks.
The Mohs hardness is ordinal, not linear, so until unless this item is added to the scale it will have an undefined Mohs hardness. Actual engineers use Brinell hardness or something similar.
Capital gains should be taxed as income (which is what it is.) So what if some (upper) middle class people then have more taxable income? I could get behind a scheme where capital gains were only calculated when you sold stock in order to get cash, rather than when you traded one type of stock for another. I could even get behind a system where the differnce between short and long term capital gains was graduated so that gains on assets held less than a year are taxed the same as regular income and the long term rate remains at 15%, but long term is redefined as 10 or 15 years. But the fact remains that the vast majority of people who derive any significant income from capital gains are extraordinarily wealthy (as are the people affected by the estate tax by the way). I can't find any info on the Bush tax cuts impacting home sellers, so I'll be happy to read any info you have on that. Generally speaking I think that lowering transactional taxes on home sales would be a good thing provided that it isn't across the board - say you can only benefit on tax incentives on one sale every three years. Otherwise it incentivizes speculative "flipping" which isn't good for the economy.
I won't defend Chris Dodd, but I will defend the community reinvestment act. Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble or bust, Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide did, and they were enabled by AIG and the rating agencies - none of these organizations were regulated by the CRA, they were making risky loans or investing in risky loans not because they had too, but because they thought it was a good idea (incidentally they were right if by good idea you mean an action likely to earn you a fat bonus.) The sub-prime bubble was a consequence of under-regulation and "innovation" in the financial markets. It was caused by the proliferation of ARMS, the collateralization of debts, the insurance against default, and most of all by the gigantic shadow market (max notional value ~$45 trillion) that traded all these things where nobody understood what they were buying or selling. It was not caused by the CRA or any other onerous regulation.
I'll also defend both the (Bush) bank bail out and the (Obama) stimulus bill. Even though I don't particularly like either of them, I feel that they were both necessary. (aside: FWIW McCain's ineptitude during the period where everything was collapsing did more to cost him the presidency then everything except maybe picking Palin). Massive immediate government outlays were necessary to prevent a banking collapse and a new great depression. They were only necessary because wall street is, frankly, incompetent. The culture of dealing with other people's money is just perverse, yet I can still only select from a handful of "approved" 401(k) funds. Remember how Bush wanted to privatize Social Security? Imagine what a cluster fuck we'd be in had that happened.
It's also important to remember that the stimulus bill and the bail out bill are separate entities. The bail out bill has been mostly repaid, and the rest should be recouped by a fee on the largest banks. The stimulus bill consists of mostly popular measures, reform of the AMT (which everyone thinks was necessary), the first time home-buyers credit, money to state and local governments to hire or retain police and fire fighters, money for basic science, etc. Look through the list of provisions and tell me what you're not happy about. I'm not happy that unemployment is above 10% either, but the reason that we lost 85,000 jobs in December is that the economy was much worse than we though - it takes a while to stem that kind of tide. If anything, I'd argue that the continued job losses illustrate that the stimulus was calibrated for a smaller recession than we're actually in and that based on these new facts the government should increase its position as the spender-of-last-resort, but I understand the argument that spending is getting out of
Space budgets world wide:
United States NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) $17,600 million[42]
EU ESA (European Space Agency) $5,350 million [43]
France CNES (French Space Agency) $2,590 million [44]
Russia RKA (Russian Federal Space Agency) $2,400 million
Japan JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) $2,100 million
Germany DLR (German Aerospace Center) $1,821 million
Italy ASI (Italian Space Agency) $1,550 million
China CNSA (China National Space Administration) $1,300 million[45]
India ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) $1,010 million[46]
Spare me the hyperbole, liberals know that life isn't fair. That doesn't mean that every time something goes wrong we have to accept it. When we're talking about scare resources, as we almost always are, making something more fair often means that someone who previously profited from inequity is now no longer is as superior a position. And that person can cry me a river - they're already privileged, and no one is talking about a revolution of the proletariat.
There are some things that we have right to - regardless of whether it's fair or not. The underpants bomber has a right to a fair trial even though he was caught red-crotched - the fair thing to do would be to throw him in a dark hole right now. It's not fair that businesses have to hire black people even if they don't want to. And it's not fair that my tax dollars are supporting US military people in Haiti. I don't want universal healthcare because it's more fair (although it is that too). I want universal health care because it's a universal human right.
I'd rather have a chance to hit the lottery than be paid the median salary, but that doesn't mean that I think everyone else should be cheated out of a fair wage.
ecause, we are the option for countries with universal health care. People come here from Canada,
This is true. If you can afford to be a health tourist, you will get excellent care in America. The problem is one of fairness. Everyone in America with access to healthcare gets great care. I question the idea that it's more equitable to let economic status decide who receives our scarce health care resources rather than some more egalitarian system, that yes, might include waiting lists.
Back to the fairness doctrine. If there were such a thing this illegals will drown our health care meme would never have surfaced. It's a red herring. Illegal immigrants already get free health care. They just wait until their in a diabetic coma or crushed by farm equipment before they show up at a hospital. Providing health care to people is a human right, it should not be contingent on your immigration status.
One thing I've never understood is that the same people who complain about the "liberal media" seem to think that liberals want to shove the fairness doctrine down the public's collective throat. Yes it's a bad idea, yes some bonehead dems bring it up every once in a while, but the thing has no legs. And whats more, if there were such a thing as the liberal media, the fairness doctrine would necessarily increase conservative views on the airways.
Now, to address your tangent, nationalization is what we did to GM and AIG.
Nationalization of healthcare would require the government to actually step up to the plate and fund healthcare, something Washington is clearly too chickenshit to do - probably because a government run insurance plan isn't likely to make campaign contributions.
If you want my opinion, the reason healthcare is now unpopular is because were the senate to take up the National Everyone Gets a Pony Act they'd probably attach a mandatory dog food provision to it.
The question, in my mind, is why has public opinion on universal healthcare soured so dramatically since November 2008? The only answer I can come up with is that while no one wants to see good sausage being made, we've spent the last year watching Harry Reid let Nelson, Lieberman et al stuff that sucker with the foulest ingredients imaginable.
It's completely, utterly and totally dead. It's pining for the fjords. It is no more. There is nothing even remotely resembling the fairness doctrine in american media.
If there were, AM radio would be radically different.
A big part of coming up with a patent is recognizing that a problem exists. By giving some experts a problem statement, you've already done half the work for them.
Think about seatbelts. The problem is people are dying in car accidents because they're being thrown against the steering wheel. Once you know that, the idea to tie the passengers down is almost trivial. Recognizing, first, that traffic accidents are a problem, and second, that specific method by which people are killed is at least 90% of the process.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue isn't the publishers, the issue is the copyright holders who are difficult to contact. The publishers are actually on board.
The problem is that google wants the courts to assign rights to them that belong to someone else - but no one knows exactly who that someone is. There was a class action that said, "Hey I could be that someone - give me some money." And google said ok, but only if this class represents all the someones. The court doesn't think that because a class sued google that they can assign rights to google of people who may not have known they were supposed to be part of that class.
I believe they're part of the companies assets that gets liquidated in bankruptcy court. It's similar to what happens if the bank that holds your mortgage goes under.
Good summation of the situation by the way.
Like Custer's valiant last stand at Little Big Horn, how America is at it's root a "Christian Nation," and that the pilgrims and the indians got together and sang kumbaya on the first thanksgiving?
No, history has never had to be factual.
Just to clarify, science must rely on observation - you don't actually have to be the guy watching the experiment to do science.
For an interesting edge case vis-a-vis observation, consider Einstein. Some of his important predictions were only observed and confirmed well after the theory was established, sometimes well after he died (e.g. frame dragging). Does that mean that Einstein wasn't a scientist? Hardly. But this is so much more the exception than the rule that we can carve out a special case for him.
Experimentation and observation are necessary, but not sufficient for an activity to be science. (Note: experimentation can include so-called "natural experiments" a la darwin)
I'm not excluding observation - if you don't actually watch the comet explode, but try to develop a model you're not doing science either - i.e. my post wasn't science.
Under no circumstances is saying, "I say a comet explode" science. There are tons of comets, and you have to give us some idea of why this one exploded - even if you were just watching on a whim I bet you have some data you can use to piece together a theory. Was the tail getting brighter immediately before the exploded, did the comet just emerge from a planetary shadow, can you calculate the trajectory and determine if it's ever passed the sun without incident? Saying that an apple fell from a tree is really mundane observation. Noticing, for the first time, that the all objects accelerate toward the ground at a constant rate is a pretty phenomenal scientific discovery.
Really? What kind of experiment did you perform on your comet watching expedition that makes you so sure it's science? More important than the double-blind experiment is the theoretical framework. Science absolutely must have either explanatory power or must make a general statement. "Some comets explode" isn't science. "Some comets with composition x explode when heated" is. "All comets contain water even though I don't know why" is also science. "Some birds have big beaks" isn't science. "Some birds evolved large beaks when presented an abundance of hard nuts" is.
What do you hunt with? I'm by no means a fire arms expert, but I'd guess that the high powered rifle you use packs a bit more punch than a 1880 colt peacemaker.
The second thing you'll learn is that there really wasn't such a think as a quickdraw gunfight.
Because Wyatt Earp was nothing if not particular about the singular form of Latin nouns.
Little known fact: the battle of the OK Coral actually started over an argument of whether octopi or octopuses was correct. (Earp went with octopuses.)
Hexum was killed with a blank, Brandon Lee was killed with actual bullets.
So cryoman is wrong in that there is something wrong with getting shot with a blank (at point-blank range, in the head).
Watching something isn't scientific observation.
Saying I saw a comet explode isn't science.
Saying I saw a comet explode as it neared the sun is getting close because now you're hypothesizing that the sun had something to do with it.
Saying, "the comet exploded due to the melting of water ice as it neared the sun, similar comets should explode as they near the sun as water ice appears to be a fundamental structural element" is science because now you're making testable and falsifiable statements about the comets in general. Now scientific community didn't have to see your comet, they just have to see a comet with similar conditions.
All we have to do is wait for a comet that matches your description fly close to the sun and see if the same thing happens again. What's more future observers can do more detailed observation and get a better sense of the comets composition before it explodes - maybe it wasn't water but thermal stresses due to heating of dissimilar materials that broke it up, but because you made a scientific statement, now the scientific community knows at least to watch for comets as they get near the sun, because something interesting might happen. Even if you're wrong, it's still science. This is important, the public ought to realize that science is a process, not The Ultimate Truth.
It gets a touch harder with historical sciences like evolution, "the raptor evolved into the chicken," is a scientific statement because I can test it with DNA for example, but I can't say why evolution chose that particular course, nor can I say if under the same conditions something resembling a raptor will evolve into something resembling a chicken. What I can say is that the two are related and when I make my Jurassic Park lets use chicken DNA instead of african frog DNA to fill in the missing pieces, it's a closer match and if anything is going to work chicken DNA will (also chickens don't spontaneously change sex - although I am concerned with the possibility of raptors with wings.)
The hallmark of science is the development of models that yield useful information, but the only way to know if the model is right is to test it - which is why Popper and everyone else is so obsessed with falsifiability.
I think you're a little too picky about your definition of science.
You don't need to do a double blind experiment for your observations to become science. Geology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology are definitely science even if we can't try out two different methods of creating granite, initiating the big bang, or applying selective pressures to dinosaurs. Likewise with climate science. You're dealt a problem with a long history and a series of facts. Now try to figure out what will happen if variable x changes. Just because changes are harder to observe than dropping apples doesn't mean there isn't science to be had.
In medicine, the caveat is always "assuming our study represents a random sample of the population." Which is almost never true. Finding different results in different populations with high levels of confidence is easy, figuring out how those two populations differ is hard. In this way medicine suffers from the same problems as economics and political science - but because they're steeped in observation and statistics they are science. It's just that science sometimes isn't as unambiguous as we might like - and the only reason we ever started thinking that science was unambiguous was because our entire scientific education consists of a series of neatly solved problems and contrived experiments. Now that I know how, I can make brass really easily - but once upon a time a metallurgist couldn't figure out why he'd add the same amount of the same rocks to copper every time and sometimes he'd get nice hard brass and other times he'd get crappy contaminated copper (the reason is the concentration of zinc in ore is variable).
I'm sorry but [citation needed].
First, of all if there is such a state law anywhere in the country, I doubt it's in Nevada.
Second of all, rape victims have something like 10 years to press charges (granted the longer the delay the less likely there will be a conviction or even investigation.)
Third, trials are still heard by juries, and if a reasonable person would assume the alleged victim gave consent, you can bet the jury won't convict.
This sounds like a campus safety presentation gone off the tracks.
The Mohs hardness is ordinal, not linear, so until unless this item is added to the scale it will have an undefined Mohs hardness. Actual engineers use Brinell hardness or something similar.
Capital gains should be taxed as income (which is what it is.) So what if some (upper) middle class people then have more taxable income? I could get behind a scheme where capital gains were only calculated when you sold stock in order to get cash, rather than when you traded one type of stock for another. I could even get behind a system where the differnce between short and long term capital gains was graduated so that gains on assets held less than a year are taxed the same as regular income and the long term rate remains at 15%, but long term is redefined as 10 or 15 years. But the fact remains that the vast majority of people who derive any significant income from capital gains are extraordinarily wealthy (as are the people affected by the estate tax by the way). I can't find any info on the Bush tax cuts impacting home sellers, so I'll be happy to read any info you have on that. Generally speaking I think that lowering transactional taxes on home sales would be a good thing provided that it isn't across the board - say you can only benefit on tax incentives on one sale every three years. Otherwise it incentivizes speculative "flipping" which isn't good for the economy.
I won't defend Chris Dodd, but I will defend the community reinvestment act. Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble or bust, Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide did, and they were enabled by AIG and the rating agencies - none of these organizations were regulated by the CRA, they were making risky loans or investing in risky loans not because they had too, but because they thought it was a good idea (incidentally they were right if by good idea you mean an action likely to earn you a fat bonus.) The sub-prime bubble was a consequence of under-regulation and "innovation" in the financial markets. It was caused by the proliferation of ARMS, the collateralization of debts, the insurance against default, and most of all by the gigantic shadow market (max notional value ~$45 trillion) that traded all these things where nobody understood what they were buying or selling. It was not caused by the CRA or any other onerous regulation.
I'll also defend both the (Bush) bank bail out and the (Obama) stimulus bill. Even though I don't particularly like either of them, I feel that they were both necessary. (aside: FWIW McCain's ineptitude during the period where everything was collapsing did more to cost him the presidency then everything except maybe picking Palin). Massive immediate government outlays were necessary to prevent a banking collapse and a new great depression. They were only necessary because wall street is, frankly, incompetent. The culture of dealing with other people's money is just perverse, yet I can still only select from a handful of "approved" 401(k) funds. Remember how Bush wanted to privatize Social Security? Imagine what a cluster fuck we'd be in had that happened.
It's also important to remember that the stimulus bill and the bail out bill are separate entities. The bail out bill has been mostly repaid, and the rest should be recouped by a fee on the largest banks. The stimulus bill consists of mostly popular measures, reform of the AMT (which everyone thinks was necessary), the first time home-buyers credit, money to state and local governments to hire or retain police and fire fighters, money for basic science, etc. Look through the list of provisions and tell me what you're not happy about. I'm not happy that unemployment is above 10% either, but the reason that we lost 85,000 jobs in December is that the economy was much worse than we though - it takes a while to stem that kind of tide. If anything, I'd argue that the continued job losses illustrate that the stimulus was calibrated for a smaller recession than we're actually in and that based on these new facts the government should increase its position as the spender-of-last-resort, but I understand the argument that spending is getting out of
Space budgets world wide:
United States NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) $17,600 million[42]
EU ESA (European Space Agency) $5,350 million [43]
France CNES (French Space Agency) $2,590 million [44]
Russia RKA (Russian Federal Space Agency) $2,400 million
Japan JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) $2,100 million
Germany DLR (German Aerospace Center) $1,821 million
Italy ASI (Italian Space Agency) $1,550 million
China CNSA (China National Space Administration) $1,300 million[45]
India ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) $1,010 million[46]
So I think we've got a bit of room.
Freedom of speech is one of the very few basic human rights that doesn't necessarily either prescribe or proscribe another's action.
First, there isn't a basic human right to keep and bear arms - just a constitutional one.
The right to travel freely and the right to assemble both deprive others of public space.
The right to vote is a right to put your opinions into action, at the cost of those holding minority opinions.
The right to not be discriminated against obligates employers and landlords to provide employment and housing to people they may rather not deal with.
The right to be free from slavery and the right to be secure in your person limits my ability to take what I want.
The right to privacy limits my ability to go where I want.
I should clarify, the government has no buisness deciding what speech is fair.
I'm perfectly comfortable, and I even expect the government to define fair housing practices, fair voting practices, fair employment rules, etc.
Says the man with health care.
Spare me the hyperbole, liberals know that life isn't fair. That doesn't mean that every time something goes wrong we have to accept it. When we're talking about scare resources, as we almost always are, making something more fair often means that someone who previously profited from inequity is now no longer is as superior a position. And that person can cry me a river - they're already privileged, and no one is talking about a revolution of the proletariat.
There are some things that we have right to - regardless of whether it's fair or not. The underpants bomber has a right to a fair trial even though he was caught red-crotched - the fair thing to do would be to throw him in a dark hole right now. It's not fair that businesses have to hire black people even if they don't want to. And it's not fair that my tax dollars are supporting US military people in Haiti. I don't want universal healthcare because it's more fair (although it is that too). I want universal health care because it's a universal human right.
I'd rather have a chance to hit the lottery than be paid the median salary, but that doesn't mean that I think everyone else should be cheated out of a fair wage.
Well it doesn't matter (and it never did) if you're selecting passwords so the FBI can't read your secret diary.
If, on the other hand, you're concerned about someone in Russia gaining access to your credit card it still matters.
No disagreement here. I personally don't understand the allure of infotainment, but neither to I understand how American Idol is king of the ratings.
Here's the thing though. I like the idea of government moderated fairness even less than I like Rush Limbaugh - and that's saying something.
This is true. If you can afford to be a health tourist, you will get excellent care in America. The problem is one of fairness. Everyone in America with access to healthcare gets great care. I question the idea that it's more equitable to let economic status decide who receives our scarce health care resources rather than some more egalitarian system, that yes, might include waiting lists.
Back to the fairness doctrine. If there were such a thing this illegals will drown our health care meme would never have surfaced. It's a red herring. Illegal immigrants already get free health care. They just wait until their in a diabetic coma or crushed by farm equipment before they show up at a hospital. Providing health care to people is a human right, it should not be contingent on your immigration status.
One thing I've never understood is that the same people who complain about the "liberal media" seem to think that liberals want to shove the fairness doctrine down the public's collective throat. Yes it's a bad idea, yes some bonehead dems bring it up every once in a while, but the thing has no legs. And whats more, if there were such a thing as the liberal media, the fairness doctrine would necessarily increase conservative views on the airways.
Now, to address your tangent, nationalization is what we did to GM and AIG.
Nationalization of healthcare would require the government to actually step up to the plate and fund healthcare, something Washington is clearly too chickenshit to do - probably because a government run insurance plan isn't likely to make campaign contributions.
If you want my opinion, the reason healthcare is now unpopular is because were the senate to take up the National Everyone Gets a Pony Act they'd probably attach a mandatory dog food provision to it.
The question, in my mind, is why has public opinion on universal healthcare soured so dramatically since November 2008? The only answer I can come up with is that while no one wants to see good sausage being made, we've spent the last year watching Harry Reid let Nelson, Lieberman et al stuff that sucker with the foulest ingredients imaginable.
no.
It's completely, utterly and totally dead. It's pining for the fjords. It is no more. There is nothing even remotely resembling the fairness doctrine in american media.
If there were, AM radio would be radically different.
There is no fairness doctrine. It's been dead since 1987.
A big part of coming up with a patent is recognizing that a problem exists. By giving some experts a problem statement, you've already done half the work for them.
Think about seatbelts. The problem is people are dying in car accidents because they're being thrown against the steering wheel. Once you know that, the idea to tie the passengers down is almost trivial. Recognizing, first, that traffic accidents are a problem, and second, that specific method by which people are killed is at least 90% of the process.