Barr is normally considered a libertarian (his views on abortion aside).
Exhibit A: When he was in congress, he fought against the NSA's Echelon program -- a very invasive spy program, where virtually all phone calls are monitored (google it).
Exhibit B: After a bizarre primary loss (he ran against another incumbent Republican), he worked for the ACLU. Yes -- those arch-conservatives at the ACLU.
So, I don't believe he was just another partisan hack or another Washington sellout. Even though I disagree with him here, I think it's because he (and Pat Schroeder) truly don't understand what's going on here.
You're confusing the issue here. Congress is not empowered to regulate pornography because the Constitution specifically enumerates Congress' power. States have constitutions as well. Cities and counties have charters. If state constitutions are open-ended, then, yes, we could see a state (let's call it Utah) implement a theocratic government.
But, then again, our courts have undermined the Constitution to the point were such concepts as "limited powers" are completely foreign to most people. E.g. the Department of Education, the ATF, etc. are all completely extra-Constitutional. And yet, the courts look the other way rather than rock the boat.
And yet, it was Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman who pushed for warning labels on CDs. Anti-obscenity crusades aren't conservative, per se. In this context they're more populist (read: demagogic).
So, would John Kerry have jumped on the internet censorship bandwagon? Probably. It's good politics regardless of which party you belong to.
Supposing you take the cheapest option, the $500 Billion Spaceships idea, over the course of 20 years -- that's $25 Billion per annum. Very doable.
There's a bigger problem, though. How do you convice 6 billion to put up with constant illumination of the night sky? Not to mention, the Astrologer's Union would be rioting in the streets.
You guys are right that cable companies may be a bureaucracy. But they do have an incentive to keep the amount of bureacracy down. All thing being equal, the smaller the company, the greater the profit per employee. That's not true with a gov't bureaucracy, where inefficiency usually leads to larger budgets and increased importance.
And, as far as internet service is concerned, there's still dial-up and DSL. I wouldn't be surprised if the future of internet access is via satellite. I have satellite TV, and I had satellite internet a few months ago (until I moved). Works about the same, and there's plenty of room for competition.
You're probably right that cable is a natural monopoly. It doesn't necessarily follow that public ownership is the answer.
Even a monopoly has to respond to market forces. Given that 80% rather than 100% of Americans have cable suggests that cable companies have found a point of maximal profit, but they don't set prices arbitrarily.
Furthermore, cable can't be a true monopoly in the sense that there are numerous imperfect substitutes, e.g. satellite, xm radio, broadcast tv, the internet, etc.
Also, we're not talking about a vital service. Roads, water, power, etc. are vital services. Cable TV is entertainment.
What would be the purpose creating one more bureaucratic institution? To ensure universal access to a non-essential service? I'll pass on that one.
No. Chess is a problem that has challenged computer scientists since the dawn of computer science precisely because no conceivable computer could ever analyze all possible moves. Back in the 1940s, Claude Shannon at Bell Labs estimated that the total number of moves was approximately 10^120.
So, computers essentially have to play chess the same way as humans. A model of the opponent is created, and the computer crunches through as many scenarios as possible in a reasonable amount of time. Ultimately, they have to anticipate the moves of their opponents based on experience and reason.
This is what makes CS Chess so interesting. Chess is not, in practice, the linear problem it theoretically should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Barr is normally considered a libertarian (his views on abortion aside).
Exhibit A: When he was in congress, he fought against the NSA's Echelon program -- a very invasive spy program, where virtually all phone calls are monitored (google it).
Exhibit B: After a bizarre primary loss (he ran against another incumbent Republican), he worked for the ACLU. Yes -- those arch-conservatives at the ACLU.
So, I don't believe he was just another partisan hack or another Washington sellout. Even though I disagree with him here, I think it's because he (and Pat Schroeder) truly don't understand what's going on here.
You're confusing the issue here. Congress is not empowered to regulate pornography because the Constitution specifically enumerates Congress' power. States have constitutions as well. Cities and counties have charters. If state constitutions are open-ended, then, yes, we could see a state (let's call it Utah) implement a theocratic government.
But, then again, our courts have undermined the Constitution to the point were such concepts as "limited powers" are completely foreign to most people. E.g. the Department of Education, the ATF, etc. are all completely extra-Constitutional. And yet, the courts look the other way rather than rock the boat.
And yet, it was Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman who pushed for warning labels on CDs. Anti-obscenity crusades aren't conservative, per se. In this context they're more populist (read: demagogic).
So, would John Kerry have jumped on the internet censorship bandwagon? Probably. It's good politics regardless of which party you belong to.
Supposing you take the cheapest option, the $500 Billion Spaceships idea, over the course of 20 years -- that's $25 Billion per annum. Very doable.
There's a bigger problem, though. How do you convice 6 billion to put up with constant illumination of the night sky? Not to mention, the Astrologer's Union would be rioting in the streets.
You guys are right that cable companies may be a bureaucracy. But they do have an incentive to keep the amount of bureacracy down. All thing being equal, the smaller the company, the greater the profit per employee. That's not true with a gov't bureaucracy, where inefficiency usually leads to larger budgets and increased importance.
And, as far as internet service is concerned, there's still dial-up and DSL. I wouldn't be surprised if the future of internet access is via satellite. I have satellite TV, and I had satellite internet a few months ago (until I moved). Works about the same, and there's plenty of room for competition.
You're probably right that cable is a natural monopoly. It doesn't necessarily follow that public ownership is the answer.
Even a monopoly has to respond to market forces. Given that 80% rather than 100% of Americans have cable suggests that cable companies have found a point of maximal profit, but they don't set prices arbitrarily.
Furthermore, cable can't be a true monopoly in the sense that there are numerous imperfect substitutes, e.g. satellite, xm radio, broadcast tv, the internet, etc.
Also, we're not talking about a vital service. Roads, water, power, etc. are vital services. Cable TV is entertainment.
What would be the purpose creating one more bureaucratic institution? To ensure universal access to a non-essential service? I'll pass on that one.
No. Chess is a problem that has challenged computer scientists since the dawn of computer science precisely because no conceivable computer could ever analyze all possible moves. Back in the 1940s, Claude Shannon at Bell Labs estimated that the total number of moves was approximately 10^120. So, computers essentially have to play chess the same way as humans. A model of the opponent is created, and the computer crunches through as many scenarios as possible in a reasonable amount of time. Ultimately, they have to anticipate the moves of their opponents based on experience and reason. This is what makes CS Chess so interesting. Chess is not, in practice, the linear problem it theoretically should be.