You are missing the point. The question here is not if they are allowed to collect your fingerprints. A ticket to Disney world is not like opening a bank account or traveling across state lines. it's a luxury. Disney is a private company and you do not have to buy a ticket. You should be more worried that the US government is about to require fingerprints for the other things I mentioned above. See the Real ID Act.
The question here is what did I buy when I purchased a ticket? Did I purchase the right for a single person to be in the park at any given time? That is accomplished by requiring a ticket for admission. Or, as they are implying, did I purchase the right for only myself to be in the park? If I purchase a multi day pass and cannot use it all of the days. Disney would have me trhow it away? I purchased an admission. I should be able to give it to my friend and have him use it if I can't.
I cannot believe this. What were the justices thinking? In what America is the state justified in taking personal property from an individual and giving it to a corporation? The betterment of the community? I don't care if my house is the eyesore of the neighborhood. The state has no right to claim my property. I can see no reasoning for the decision except that the SCOTUS answers to no one and there was money involved.
Where do we go from here. Land is just a form of personal property. How about your car? You know, my company could use some cars for my sales force. My neighbor has a pretty nice Mazda...
It occurred to me today that you only own something to the extent that you can defend it. One of the homeowners said he was not leaving.
I could go on and on why this is bad. For instance just one tiny example is that this smacks of Revelations. Even if you don't believe in the Bible you should acknowledge that they were trying to tell us something in that story. Why would you sign up for something that a primitive civilization thought was an evil idea over 2000 years ago?
My question is this.
Is there a similar movement in the USA and where can I find it?
Expanding the patriot act will make the law enforcement agencies better able to do their job (i.e. more efficient). That's not necessarily a good thing. There is another name for efficient government. Fascist dictatorships. The US Government is the most powerful in the world. The worst thing that could happen would be for it to also be the most efficient in the world. The Italians commented under Mussolini that he had the trains running on time. Efficient.
The founding fathers designed this government to be inefficient & slow, with checks and balances to impede legislation. Freedom means accepting risk.
We should not be so afraid of risk that we are willing to give up freedom and privacy. We put up with greater risks every day and don't take such extreme precautions. We drive down the street in 2 ton automobiles within feet of drivers we don't know. We go to work in buildings with hundreds of people we don't know. Risk is all around us. As a matter of fact, the entire US system of government is based on increased risk in favor of freedom. A simple example is the basic idea that a person innocent until proven guilty. That assumption assures that more guilty people will go free than innocent people will go to jail. We, as a society agree we are willing to walk among dangerous criminals so that we do not endanger the freedom of individuals.
Laws build up, they don't expire. Even those with built in expiration dates like the Patriot act don't go away when they expire, they get bigger. National ID cards restrict travel, expanding the Patriot Act reduces freedom of expression, national "public" schooling makes us think both are OK.
Abandon the two party system (there are really only minor differences between them anyway) and vote for an oddball.
Suggestion Slashdot editors - How about reporting "the Senate Intelligence Committee is GOING to vote on the Patriot Act next month" instead of "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back AFTER a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee." Your way reports the news & let's us all complain about how we all just lost some freedom. My way lets us mobilize and tell our representatives what we think.
We should not be so afraid of risk that we are willing to give up freedom and privacy. We put up with greater risks every day and don't take such extreme precautions. We drive down the street in 2 ton weapons within feet of people we don't know. We go to work in buildings with hundreds of people we don't know. Risk is all around us. As a matter of fact, the entire US system of government is based on increased risk in favor of freedom.
Don't believe me?
A simple example is the basic idea that a person innocent until proven guilty. That assumption assures that more guilty people will go free than innocent people will go to jail. We, as a society agree we are willing to walk among dangerous criminals so that we do not endanger the freedom of individuals. Why is this any different? What are my chances of being involved in an attack on a plane? How much will this reduce that risk? Is it worth the loss in personal dignity? Wait till airport X ray photos end up on some fetish internet site. I say it's not worth it.
The whole risk for freedom idea also implies that we all share responsibility for our own safety and that of others. The people on the 9-11 flight that crashed in PA were right. They took matters into their own hands and did not rely on a protecting government, which is incapable of helping anyway, to save them. Their death, though completely tragic, was a victory & a wake up call. I can't say for sure how I would have acted before 911 but I am sure now.
The passengers on the other flights were told to stay calm and all would be OK. The thought being that they would be released by their captors or that they would be rescued. Both assumptions put the responsibility of their personal safety in someone else's hands.
I remember thinking that the P2P software ELUA's have some language in them that says that you may not alter the code, use it for purposes that may be harmful to other users, spy on other users, or collect data on them.
Now someone is filing a patent for something that does just that? Is it me, or do the ELUA's only work for companies with big wallets?
Maybe I just don't understand the technology. How can somebody apply for a patent that breaks into other people's software and uses it in a way expressly forbidden by the owner?
I also wonder how any future anti spyware laws might interact with this patent
IANAL or a programmer but this looks fishy. Set me straight.
Bandwidth have been the original reason for the FCC but I fear that we would be hard pressed to raise the issue now. When the FCC begins to regulate the internet and satellite radio, they will be so firmly entrenched in the policing of morality and decency, that making the point that they are no longer needed will be futile.
Make no mistake, the FCC will try to regulate the internet and satellite radio. We have to stop them. Make sure your representatives know how you feel.
Moving off shore may not be any help. The FCC regulates things within the US. Once that info enters our airspace it's fair game to be regulated. Don't think it can happen? China is well on their way. Plenty of free ideas out in the world. Not many making it to China these days.
The FCC does not have to stop all the traffic, they just need to make it hard to get at for the average person. That's the real beauty of the internet. It's accessible to average people and every day more and more people connect.
Yep. At our heart, we are a republic of nation states. Power concentrated at the state and local level. The federal government essentially consolidated power after the civil war. IE the whole was more important than the states, therefore they were not allowed to leave. Not that I think they should have been allowed to go, but it did mark a turning point in power structure of the US.
Perhaps with the internet and the rapid spread of news and ideas, we will be able to decentralize again.
This will be slow but I believe it will happen. Not only with elections but with laws, education etc.
Put honest data in, get honest data out. Everyone believes this. I believed it too until I met a computer with a sense of humor. - Robert Heinlein
Have we reached a point, technologically speaking that is, where the major issues could actually be voted on by the people directly? Any issue not getting X direct votes would then go to Congress... Or something like that.
Perhaps the best issues to vote directly for might be general laws that govern how Congress actually works. IE no riders or "Congress may not vote on any issue that affects them and only them i.e. pay increases. Such issues must go to a popular vote (referendum?) While you are at it, have we reached a point, technologically speaking that is, where the major issues could actually be voted on by the people directly? Any issue not getting X direct votes would then go to Congress... Or something like that.
I agree. 50 / month does not cover production etc for 500+ channels. However, people paying 50 bucks don't get 500. I know I don't. Also, how many of those 500 channels do you really watch?
As the cost to watch / listen goes higher and higher why not pay people to watch commercials? That money could come directly off their cable bill.
If I could do this anonymously, I might even be persuaded to give some feedback. All the advertiser need know is that someone in my area or household likes product X, and would you like to buy that now sir? Grocery retailers pay people in the form of discounts for access to their buying data. This would not be that different.
I am a big BSG fan and would be willing to pay money directly for that particular show.
This just confirms my theory that, as radio declines and digital goes up, digital will become radio with all that that implies. FCC regulation, commercials etc...
Don't believe it? Look at cable TV. When it started, you paid for cable because it had no commercials. That made sense. Commercials paid for television. If people pay for it directly, no need for commercials right? Wrong. Now we pay for cable and still have commercials.
It's only a matter of time before this happens to radio.
This bill was the first time I really got involved in making my opinion by my representative. Obviously, it didn't work.
It occurred to me that this may be a major reason (subconsciously) why people do not become more involved in government. Once you do and it doesn't work you are forced to acknowledge that your representatives don't actually represent you. That being said, what do you do next? Your options seem limited.
Don't vote for that person again? Obviously, but that assumes that there is someone else to vote for that will represent you & not fall victim to the same pressures as the guy you just voted out of office.
Run for office yourself. Good luck. To actually reach an office where you could affect real change, you would need to campaign full time. That assumed you have substantial cash resources to live on while you run.
Lobby for big issues personally. This may be the best overall choice. Something you could do in your spare time and on a limited budget. Although you would need to choose issues carefully, again time and $ being limited.
Perhaps the best issues to take up the flag for might be general laws that govern how Congress actually works. IE no riders or "Congress may not vote on any issue that affects them and only them i.e. pay increases. Such issues must go to a popular vote (referendum?) While you are at it, have we reached a point, technologically speaking that is, where the major issues could actually be voted on by the people directly? Any issue not getting X direct votes would then go to Congress... Or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing the point. The question here is not if they are allowed to collect your fingerprints. A ticket to Disney world is not like opening a bank account or traveling across state lines. it's a luxury. Disney is a private company and you do not have to buy a ticket. You should be more worried that the US government is about to require fingerprints for the other things I mentioned above. See the Real ID Act.
The question here is what did I buy when I purchased a ticket? Did I purchase the right for a single person to be in the park at any given time? That is accomplished by requiring a ticket for admission. Or, as they are implying, did I purchase the right for only myself to be in the park? If I purchase a multi day pass and cannot use it all of the days. Disney would have me trhow it away? I purchased an admission. I should be able to give it to my friend and have him use it if I can't.
Also it's not
"Your DNA Belongs To Us"
It's
"All your DNA Are Belong To Us"
I cannot believe this. What were the justices thinking? In what America is the state justified in taking personal property from an individual and giving it to a corporation? The betterment of the community? I don't care if my house is the eyesore of the neighborhood. The state has no right to claim my property. I can see no reasoning for the decision except that the SCOTUS answers to no one and there was money involved.
Where do we go from here. Land is just a form of personal property. How about your car? You know, my company could use some cars for my sales force. My neighbor has a pretty nice Mazda...
It occurred to me today that you only own something to the extent that you can defend it. One of the homeowners said he was not leaving.
This will end badly.
If the National ID card (Real ID) is any indication, they are already on their way. I think not long.
I could go on and on why this is bad. For instance just one tiny example is that this smacks of Revelations. Even if you don't believe in the Bible you should acknowledge that they were trying to tell us something in that story. Why would you sign up for something that a primitive civilization thought was an evil idea over 2000 years ago?
My question is this.
Is there a similar movement in the USA and where can I find it?
Thanks
What will the kids throw instead of chalkboard erasers? Batteries?
In this case change is bad.
Expanding the patriot act will make the law enforcement agencies better able to do their job (i.e. more efficient). That's not necessarily a good thing. There is another name for efficient government. Fascist dictatorships. The US Government is the most powerful in the world. The worst thing that could happen would be for it to also be the most efficient in the world. The Italians commented under Mussolini that he had the trains running on time. Efficient.
The founding fathers designed this government to be inefficient & slow, with checks and balances to impede legislation. Freedom means accepting risk.
We should not be so afraid of risk that we are willing to give up freedom and privacy. We put up with greater risks every day and don't take such extreme precautions. We drive down the street in 2 ton automobiles within feet of drivers we don't know. We go to work in buildings with hundreds of people we don't know. Risk is all around us. As a matter of fact, the entire US system of government is based on increased risk in favor of freedom. A simple example is the basic idea that a person innocent until proven guilty. That assumption assures that more guilty people will go free than innocent people will go to jail. We, as a society agree we are willing to walk among dangerous criminals so that we do not endanger the freedom of individuals.
Laws build up, they don't expire. Even those with built in expiration dates like the Patriot act don't go away when they expire, they get bigger. National ID cards restrict travel, expanding the Patriot Act reduces freedom of expression, national "public" schooling makes us think both are OK.
Abandon the two party system (there are really only minor differences between them anyway) and vote for an oddball.
Suggestion Slashdot editors - How about reporting "the Senate Intelligence Committee is GOING to vote on the Patriot Act next month" instead of "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back AFTER a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee." Your way reports the news & let's us all complain about how we all just lost some freedom. My way lets us mobilize and tell our representatives what we think.
Freedom is risk. It's that simple.
We should not be so afraid of risk that we are willing to give up freedom and privacy. We put up with greater risks every day and don't take such extreme precautions. We drive down the street in 2 ton weapons within feet of people we don't know. We go to work in buildings with hundreds of people we don't know. Risk is all around us. As a matter of fact, the entire US system of government is based on increased risk in favor of freedom.
Don't believe me?
A simple example is the basic idea that a person innocent until proven guilty. That assumption assures that more guilty people will go free than innocent people will go to jail. We, as a society agree we are willing to walk among dangerous criminals so that we do not endanger the freedom of individuals. Why is this any different? What are my chances of being involved in an attack on a plane? How much will this reduce that risk? Is it worth the loss in personal dignity? Wait till airport X ray photos end up on some fetish internet site. I say it's not worth it.
The whole risk for freedom idea also implies that we all share responsibility for our own safety and that of others. The people on the 9-11 flight that crashed in PA were right. They took matters into their own hands and did not rely on a protecting government, which is incapable of helping anyway, to save them. Their death, though completely tragic, was a victory & a wake up call. I can't say for sure how I would have acted before 911 but I am sure now.
The passengers on the other flights were told to stay calm and all would be OK. The thought being that they would be released by their captors or that they would be rescued. Both assumptions put the responsibility of their personal safety in someone else's hands.
Both are wrong.
I remember thinking that the P2P software ELUA's have some language in them that says that you may not alter the code, use it for purposes that may be harmful to other users, spy on other users, or collect data on them.
Now someone is filing a patent for something that does just that? Is it me, or do the ELUA's only work for companies with big wallets?
Maybe I just don't understand the technology. How can somebody apply for a patent that breaks into other people's software and uses it in a way expressly forbidden by the owner?
I also wonder how any future anti spyware laws might interact with this patent
IANAL or a programmer but this looks fishy. Set me straight.
Bandwidth have been the original reason for the FCC but I fear that we would be hard pressed to raise the issue now. When the FCC begins to regulate the internet and satellite radio, they will be so firmly entrenched in the policing of morality and decency, that making the point that they are no longer needed will be futile.
Make no mistake, the FCC will try to regulate the internet and satellite radio. We have to stop them. Make sure your representatives know how you feel.
Moving off shore may not be any help. The FCC regulates things within the US. Once that info enters our airspace it's fair game to be regulated. Don't think it can happen? China is well on their way. Plenty of free ideas out in the world. Not many making it to China these days.
The FCC does not have to stop all the traffic, they just need to make it hard to get at for the average person. That's the real beauty of the internet. It's accessible to average people and every day more and more people connect.
Yep. At our heart, we are a republic of nation states. Power concentrated at the state and local level. The federal government essentially consolidated power after the civil war. IE the whole was more important than the states, therefore they were not allowed to leave. Not that I think they should have been allowed to go, but it did mark a turning point in power structure of the US.
Perhaps with the internet and the rapid spread of news and ideas, we will be able to decentralize again.
This will be slow but I believe it will happen. Not only with elections but with laws, education etc.
Put honest data in, get honest data out. Everyone believes this. I believed it too until I met a computer with a sense of humor. - Robert Heinlein
Have we reached a point, technologically speaking that is, where the major issues could actually be voted on by the people directly? Any issue not getting X direct votes would then go to Congress... Or something like that.
Perhaps the best issues to vote directly for might be general laws that govern how Congress actually works. IE no riders or "Congress may not vote on any issue that affects them and only them i.e. pay increases. Such issues must go to a popular vote (referendum?) While you are at it, have we reached a point, technologically speaking that is, where the major issues could actually be voted on by the people directly? Any issue not getting X direct votes would then go to Congress... Or something like that.
I agree. 50 / month does not cover production etc for 500+ channels. However, people paying 50 bucks don't get 500. I know I don't. Also, how many of those 500 channels do you really watch?
As the cost to watch / listen goes higher and higher why not pay people to watch commercials? That money could come directly off their cable bill.
If I could do this anonymously, I might even be persuaded to give some feedback. All the advertiser need know is that someone in my area or household likes product X, and would you like to buy that now sir? Grocery retailers pay people in the form of discounts for access to their buying data. This would not be that different.
I am a big BSG fan and would be willing to pay money directly for that particular show.
This just confirms my theory that, as radio declines and digital goes up, digital will become radio with all that that implies. FCC regulation, commercials etc...
Don't believe it? Look at cable TV. When it started, you paid for cable because it had no commercials. That made sense. Commercials paid for television. If people pay for it directly, no need for commercials right? Wrong. Now we pay for cable and still have commercials.
It's only a matter of time before this happens to radio.
This bill was the first time I really got involved in making my opinion by my representative. Obviously, it didn't work.
It occurred to me that this may be a major reason (subconsciously) why people do not become more involved in government. Once you do and it doesn't work you are forced to acknowledge that your representatives don't actually represent you. That being said, what do you do next? Your options seem limited.
Don't vote for that person again? Obviously, but that assumes that there is someone else to vote for that will represent you & not fall victim to the same pressures as the guy you just voted out of office.
Run for office yourself. Good luck. To actually reach an office where you could affect real change, you would need to campaign full time. That assumed you have substantial cash resources to live on while you run.
Lobby for big issues personally. This may be the best overall choice. Something you could do in your spare time and on a limited budget. Although you would need to choose issues carefully, again time and $ being limited.
Perhaps the best issues to take up the flag for might be general laws that govern how Congress actually works. IE no riders or "Congress may not vote on any issue that affects them and only them i.e. pay increases. Such issues must go to a popular vote (referendum?) While you are at it, have we reached a point, technologically speaking that is, where the major issues could actually be voted on by the people directly? Any issue not getting X direct votes would then go to Congress... Or something like that.