Your post inspired mine, but everything I said in my post wasn't directed entirely at you and what you said. I can appreciate your point and why you're concerned about children, but I think that looking to content providers (or as some extremists suggest) to legislation to provide filtering isn't going to work and ends up causing more restrictive issues.
I think it's oversimplifying the point was I trying to make to infer that I want the Internet to be an Adults only resource.
As far as the vocabulary of some of the posts here, I agree. I think that the moderation system is a novel and fairly sucessful way to deal with it and possibly could be a model (at least philosophically) for some other sites.
I also think thatwhen they are at certain ages you have to try to be the filter for just about everything that reaches your kids; as they get older you proportionally step back and start to provide a context for what the world and pop culture have to offer (both good and bad).
Is an XXX TLD a good idea? It could be if it were done right, it could be a bad idea if done wrong. SO many times these offers of "solutions" for issues with the web (which seems to work pretty well how it is) are disguised attempts to promote some other agenda.
It drives me crazy when people think or expect that it's okay to water down or criple anything that isn't meant for children "because a child might see it."
How about this: Be a parent.
A filter is a good feature, but even those are imperfect.
If you're so concerned that your child might see something, then take the TV or computer out of your home and out of your life. Don't try to mandate what others have access to.
IMO it's "lowest common denominator" thinking - in that we all have to suffer the homogization of culture based on what the most fearful among us decide is inappropriate.
There is a lot of that sort of stuff going on lately. Especially in the US. We have a government in place that is moving slowly toward total control.
When you have a government that has been allowed to get away with secret prisons both inside and outside of borders; Indefinite incarceration without due process; and the ability and authority to spy on any citizen with the cooperation and collusion of big business without any sort of warrant or any (even laughable) oversight- what do you think follows? Disneyland? A safer America? Fuck No!
What follows is the same sort thing that has gone on for countless years in countries that the US used to decry for their cruel and unusual punishment. Basically anybody who disagrees with government or corporate policies loud enough or anyone who they think is a threat will disappear - They'll possibly be subject to torturous interrogation techniques and then will disappear (does it matter if it's into a mass grave, a shallow grave, a secret prison or a FEMA detention center)?
I am sure that there are government supremacists or apologists who will claim this sort of talk is overdoing it or exaggerating - probably the same people who claimed it was exaggeration when I warned everyone I knew about how dangerous the Patriot Act was/is - all I heard was "It sunsets in 2005" and "this is for extraordinary circumstances, it's all a cycle, it will turn the other way" and other similar useless crap.
This is America. WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT- WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO. This is our system of checks and balances and it's going, going, practically gone.
There are Americans who just refuse to see it. It doesn't fit their paradigm or occur to them as even being within the realm of possibility that our system is terminally corrupt and heading at warp speed in an anti-freedom, anti-human, and COMPLETELY anti-American direction.
Especially now that "Homeland Security" is a commodity.
What are we going to do? What are you going to do? (don't give me that vote crap - I'm not saying not to vote, I'm just saying if you can even get an honest election and an honest politician that's not going to happen soon enough).
I think people are starting to wake up. Finally, but then what? -
"Im so sick of their bullshit; (that goes for the MPAA And the RIAA).
Rather than using their brains and attempting to understand and possibly even benefit from something they are not going to be able to control they act like crazed luddites with fascistrabies (i'm convinced this disease exists and is running rampant in the US. -
Everytime we hear something from these tools it's more outlandish and restrictive than the last lame ass legislation they've tried to induce via whatever backdoor lophole extralegal method they haven't yet exhausted. "
- but instead I think I will just laugh at the futility and desparateness of every move they make. The only thing that stops my laughter from continuing is when I think about the general caliber of person in Government in the US. Then I realize that it is possible that they might get one of these things passed and life would suck for the short amount of time it took for the market and the public to respond to the digital handcuffs on their devices.
While I am sure there are dissenting viewpoints here and probably even people who support these sorts of abuses of power and the general incremental march towards fascism and tow the US Govt line, I think in general/. has a lot of really intelligent and insightful people who don't think that these things are right.
So I ask this question to those who do feel that what is/has been happening in the US in regard to abuse of power, using propaganda and political trickery via machiavellian machinations to control "public opinion" and taking away civil liberties in the name of "safety" or the "neverending-always-justified-war-on-terror" is totally insane and beyond the pale:
At what point do you say enough is enough? What has to happen? And what do we do then?
(...maybe something other than "vote all incumbents out." I think that goes without saying but unfortunately in many cases I think that the system is so broken by what I consider institutionalized corruption built into the process (I.E. things are are cosindered legal but which completely undermine the democratic process) not to mention the totally illegal stuff that we all know goes on sometimes)
The RIAA's use for artists is analogous to the Farmer's use for cattle.
All they care about is money, stopping competition, destroying anything that threatens the status quo of their powerful position in regard to the industry - even when it's something consumers and artists want, if they can't control it and it doesn't fit into their paradigm then they would rather see it gone.
Anything they say about "protecting artists" is about as genuine as Bush when he speaks about "freedom." They are protecting their racket.
Are you kidding me? I am sure "CountBrass" is your real name.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and it is a good one in theory - but in the real world if you piss off a large corporation or government agency there is no guarantee of safety or protection - even if....no actually, especially if you are a whistleblower exposing the abuses of the powerful.
Let's say you work for an oil company; or the dept. of water and power; or, better yet, and every more relevant - let's say you work as an analyst for a government intelligence agency. Let's say that you find out that something shady is going on, or they are doing something that puts their workers or the public at risk - or let's say that you worked for the government in intelligence and found out that they were lying about crucial intelligence or had perpetrated a fraud among the American people.
Many times in the past couple of years when someone has found out about something and reported it under whistleblower statutes they've gotten screwed. Look into it, ADM - Sibel Edmonds.
Whether it's a large corporation or the government in most cases they are going to go into what I call "COVER YOUR ASS" mode. With a company, they can fire and slander you. They don't need a reason anymore. With the government they'll defame you and claim national security and make you out to be the bad guy.
When you stand to lose a job or your freedom because you stood up and did the right thing you may feel different about posting anonymously - and as far as elected officials are concerned - if they can't deal with anonymous comments people make online (no matter what they are) they shouldn't be running for public office.
This is absurd; it's absurd that these things are copyrighted in a way that makes them want to enforce it to cause problems for a person who is innovating and basically doing a public service for free.
I remember a couple of years ago we used to have an MTA subway map shower curtain - It was pretty cool. Obviously my gf paid for that and I guess under our copyright system (which is incredibly flawed in my opinion)I am sure that the copyright holder (probably MTA in that instance) got money. Had this guy been printing shirts or using the map for monetary gain, their sort of heavy handed response might make more sense.... The more I think about it, they're probably pissed that they didn't think of it first and offer to sell it - my guess is that is what they will do now.
However - as it is it just seems like another expression of an idea I have seen expressed a lot lately by big business (including the US govt) - that citizens or companies doing anything helpful to the general public for free must not be tolerated - (because don't you know - it's a form of communism or socialism)- like free wifi that Philly tried to implement before the politicorpwhores stepped in an rejiggered it and made it much less cool.
One thing that he or anyone could do is get some people together who kind of want to turn the tables and make a better, even more useful and more aesthetically pleasing version. He could offer it for free - possibly copyright it himself if nesscessary using creative commmons or some other new saner form of copyright that protects him when he offers it for free.
Yeah - that's nice - Canada definitely rocks. However, A lot of Americans stand up to big business too; and until you Canadians tell your police to stop enforcing US federal law by proxy (just ask Marc Emery) I think you may want to reassess your ball size.
I'm an American - I know my government well - in my opinion they should not be totally in control of any aspect of the internet. It's too important to the entire world and I think that (especially lately) the US government has shown that the only thing it cares about is power and control. Power and control over the world's resources, regardless of what that means to the people who own, live near or have interests in those things.
To them, they view the internet as a military tool. Nothing more. When I say that I don't mean for their own direct use, they have their internet2 or whatever - they see it as something to be controlled. Just like if you want to control access to a city militarily one of the things you want to do is control all bridges or access points. They want to retain that ability.
Yes, I am aware of the internets beginnings. Al Gore worked very hard. - (is that joke way too old and played out?...sorry). No seriously I am aware of the internet's beginnings and the progression from Arpanet etc - it's not the same as it was. It is like comparing a child to an adult. Though its parents (US military, research, and academic communities - who basically work with the military in many cases) could control it when it was a 2 year old - they should not have full control over it as an adult. The entire world relies on it too much.
The current administration doesn't believe in international law or in any sort of cooperation with anything or anybody unless it suits their own interests. What they do believe in is Orwellian doublespeak about freedom and compassion - don't get me wrong, these issues are mot limited to the current administration either - they are just a very extreme example of it in my opinion.
Personally, I believe control of the root servers and everything else that makes up the backbone of the net should be spread out - both for redundency's sake and to prevent any one country for being a complete failure point (whether it's from a tyrant taking control or a natural disaster) or from having so much say over what happens that they control everything.
This may not be realistic presently. I know that the major fiber lines are probably owned by large corporations...
oh...WTF should we all just give up and put a giant glowing "TM: A wholly owned subsidiary of the United States" in orbit around the earth so that when visitors from other planets see Earth in their telescopes or viewports they will know right away who owns and runs things? WTF?
It's just one more example of the the institutionalized corruption in our country - using the loophole/sneak style of legislation, using laws or rules in a spirit which is contrary to democracy; and this isn't even one of the more egregious examples.
So let's say they finally get this thing passed. How long before someone discovers a workaround or codes a hack? Probably not long.
Make it so that people can't record or tivo their "fixes" (TV is the drug of choice, at least in the US), they'll be pissed and the resourceful will find away around it. What then? throw em in jail? I wouldn't be surprised if thats what these "Associations" try to do.
The thing is - they pretty much are saying that and you barely have to read between the lines to see it - those lines are getting further apart by the second.
What really gets me is all the people who roll over say "Well, they know what's best."
(They: choose Govt or Media or Corporate authority of your choice)
I totally agree with your post (the 1-8 points) - but here is the problem as I see it:
Such a candidate would never make it to a ballot.
The requirements to get on the ballot are insane, it requires an awful lot of money and signatures. Look at what happened to Nader - regardless of how you feel about the guy, even as well known and well backed as he was he had a hard time (and I'm not referring to the fact that he was viewed by some as a spoiler or as being responsible for Bush winning in 2000) I'm talking about all of the hoops he was made to jump through and the ways they found little technicalities to keep him from ballots and the way the media worked on him.
I am afraid that if a party (or candidate)came along that truly challenged the dominance of either of the 2 parties, here is what would happen:
They would use every legal means to make it hard for the candidate or party.
If that didn't work -
They'd find technicalities or cause other types of problems.
If that didn't work -
They'd dig into the past of the candidate/party and all associates to find anything potentionally embarrassing or discrediting and use the media to assail this person/party.
If that didn't work -
They'd manipulate/create a situation to accomplish the above -
If that didn't work -
Assuming anybody could make it through the gauntlet of challenges above (maybe someone should design a video game) - then they'd probably have some sort of accident (car, plane, whatever) - or possibly would commit suicide by slashing their own wrists and shooting themselves 7 times in the head.
I also agree that it will get worse before there is a chance of it getting better. In some ways we have lost our republic.
I am not saying it is impossible for things to improve, but I think that the public at large has to realize how much they are being manipulated by the media/polls/politicians and how truly corrupt the system is. It seems that a lot of people are finally realizing this.
On a related note I would urge everyone to read up on FEMA and the COG plan - what happens when FEMA declares a national emergency (the constitution is suspended - congress cannot intervene for 6 months at least) - I would urge them to read up on how this agency was created and the purpose, as well as all the executive orders that apply to FEMA and the COG.
The COG plan has been in place since the late 70s. It has been activated and fully functional since late 2001. This means that there is a parallel government operating in bunkers in the US right now waiting to take control should an emergency be declared. There does not have to be a ctastrophic attack. Do you know who these people are who will take control of the country after the constitution has been suspended?
Of course not. Their identities are secret - but the plan is not. I know this sounds like tin-foil hat material, but you can check into it for yourself.
Okay, I went off on a tangent there - but it is related. With what experts and people in power are saying about "peak oil" and terrorism etc, it will be a wonder if we have have another election, let alone one that's not a sham.
You really think that the US government is answerable to the people?
(I know they are supposed to be, and I know that's the big illusion that we all participate in - well, I don't anymore, but...)
In the US the Govt. and large multinational corporations are so incestuously intertwined that lately in many situations it is unclear who is really making policy.
- Not that it matters which one of them truly is, because at this point in time being answerable to the people is only something they are interested in portraying - not in actually practicing.
Trying to limit political speech online (and don't let the title of this "act" fool you, that's what it's about. In general these days the title of the law usually is opposite to it's true purpose. It's like a fucking George Orwell nightmare that just keeps getting worse.
Yes - it did apply to regular everyday people. That was the point.
(As the previous response to your reply has already noted).
I don't claim to know everything, and certainly am willing to admit when I am wrong, but I do know enough about this era of American history - (including the Constitution and texts that preceeded and followed it - (I.E. Federalist Papers, proposed amendments of Anti-Federalists, etc) as well as the context of what was happening in the colonies and England as well as the rest of the world around this time) to know that.
This was about citizens being armed - in large part so that they had some protection should an army or their own government become tyrannical.
That was a huge violation of these people's rights (and of the 2nd amendment). They were confiscating firearms from people who lawfully owned them and had done nothing wrong. This was an abuse of power and I think it had a lot more to do with setting a precedent then the actual situation in NOLA at that time.
I was outraged when I heard about this so I looked into how it was that they were able to even think about doing this legally - what I was told was that the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans have laws that allow this. I don't know if that is all there is to it, or if those laws supercede the constitution in an emergency.
What I am told is that Louisiana has a provision to declare state emergencies (which they have done) and a lot of restrictive powers come with it.
Even with that said, I still think that this was improper and dangerous. There is a reason why we have the 2nd amendment, and that reason is just as viable now (probably more so)as it was when it was written.
For a city, state, or federal government to disarm law abiding American citizens for any reason when they have done no wrong, ESPECIALLY during a time of crisis or emergency is something that should concern everybody. It's tyrannical and dangerous to our country.
I have no problem with weapons being taken away from people committing criminal acts or people on the street looting or acting in a threatening manner - but going to someone's house and detaining them and handcuffing them, searching and removing their guns because you claim "we are afraid people won't want to be forcibly eveacuated from their homes and might get jumpy." - well, do I even need to characterize that?
Well, that's good news I guess. Thanks for the info - I'll have to check into those - If they truly put some independence into that process then I hope that they make it, and if they make it and pass then I really hope they turn out to have the impact that the people who support them hope they will.
I know a lot of people in Ohio were outraged, as were a lot of informed people throughout the country - but when I say "barely a peep.." what I mean is that if things like this get reported at all in the mainstream media they are quickly mentioned and then never again, or are glossed over; thus it doesn't truly enter the "national discourse." Actually I guess "national discourse" is not the best term - perhaps a more accurate term these days would be whatever joe six-pack discusses with his family and around the water cooler after catching his nightly "mindless stream of 'infotainment' with it's patented blend o' celebrity gossip, titillation via sex and violence, 1 tbsp of crime/terror fear with a healthy dose of propaganda and finger pointing so people think something is being done in their interest" that gets endlessly regurgitated.
I'm not trying to sound overly cynical or anything, but that's what I see. Calling that kind of stuff news is like filling a bottle with 60% water, 35% high fructose corn syrup, 3% piss and 2% real apple juice and selling it to the public as "Nature's Finest Apple Juice." It might look good and taste good, but it's nasty, misleading, and bad for you in more ways than one.
With things like this Diebold issue, I just wish more people - more everyday non-techie Americans who trust their government and who don't know anything other than turning on Fox or NBC to get their news had access to more sources of news that aren't corporate mouthpieces or focused on ratings. Even NPR isn't immune from agenda and big money politics. I wish they remembered that checks and balances exist for a reason. My hope is that the civics and government teachers out there who are aware of all of the compromises that are being made are informing their students to check into these things. I can't imagine how (if I were a civics teacher) I would explain what's happening in today's America alongside what I was taught about the purpose of three branches of government and checks and balances. We aren't supposed to have blind faith or trust in our government. We are not supposed to have to.
What's really upsetting is that so many people think all of these things are just coincedences or accidents, or are do to laziness.
All of the information about Diebold's lack of security and the ease to which their machines could be tampered with was available to the entire world before the election - as well as the insane conflicts of interest involving the ownership of the company and their promises to deliver certain states to Bush.
This, along with all of the reports (by credible sources including city and state governmental workers) of misconduct in Ohio and still...barely a peep.
I mean, really, i'm not a democrat or a republican - but damn - I am sick of the US being run by criminals and corporations (of which many are run by or for the benefit of criminals) - and when I say criminals - these people are criminals - white collar or otherwise. People think Enron was the eception rather than the rule - well, sorry, that's not quite the case - it's more prevalent than that. I'm not saying all corporations are evil or anything like that...I'm just sick of people being in denial about how corrupt America business and politics and the incestuous relationship between them is. Apathy reigns.
I know the answer, but I can't help asking: Don't people know their history?
When business and government collude to this degree where business basically calls the shots with profit above all else it doesn't end well. There is a word for it actually.
Diebold needs to be put in check - seriously. Evoting with no paper trail or verification system is absurb - it pratically guarantees misconduct on some level.
And this is certainly one thing to consider when you think about why someone would do this - The government and big business and slimy groups like the RIAA and MPAA (who think it's okay to have your computer to ensure that you're aren't doing anything they consider wrong, and don't think shey should be liable if they happen to damage it) have a lot of money and many forms of coercion, bribery and inteimidation to accomplish their goals. THey'd like nothing better than to take over something they know people depend upon to keep p2p free of shams.
Just reading that Erwin guy's response, to me it seems fairly obvious that he is using fear based tactics to try to scare people from even really looking into the situation....
Sure, they can take away my inkjet refill syringe...
-WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!!!
(printing bumper stickers right now - got my whole posse of ink refillin' scofflaws ready to paint the town red!)
Slashdot Mirror
Your post inspired mine, but everything I said in my post wasn't directed entirely at you and what you said. I can appreciate your point and why you're concerned about children, but I think that looking to content providers (or as some extremists suggest) to legislation to provide filtering isn't going to work and ends up causing more restrictive issues.
I think it's oversimplifying the point was I trying to make to infer that I want the Internet to be an Adults only resource.
As far as the vocabulary of some of the posts here, I agree. I think that the moderation system is a novel and fairly sucessful way to deal with it and possibly could be a model (at least philosophically) for some other sites.
I also think thatwhen they are at certain ages you have to try to be the filter for just about everything that reaches your kids; as they get older you proportionally step back and start to provide a context for what the world and pop culture have to offer (both good and bad).
Is an XXX TLD a good idea? It could be if it were done right, it could be a bad idea if done wrong. SO many times these offers of "solutions" for issues with the web (which seems to work pretty well how it is) are disguised attempts to promote some other agenda.
All of this is my opinion of course.
It drives me crazy when people think or expect that it's okay to water down or criple anything that isn't meant for children "because a child might see it."
How about this: Be a parent.
A filter is a good feature, but even those are imperfect.
If you're so concerned that your child might see something, then take the TV or computer out of your home and out of your life. Don't try to mandate what others have access to.
IMO it's "lowest common denominator" thinking - in that we all have to suffer the homogization of culture based on what the most fearful among us decide is inappropriate.
There is a lot of that sort of stuff going on lately. Especially in the US. We have a government in place that is moving slowly toward total control.
This is headed to a very bad place.
When you have a government that has been allowed to get away with secret prisons both inside and outside of borders; Indefinite incarceration without due process; and the ability and authority to spy on any citizen with the cooperation and collusion of big business without any sort of warrant or any (even laughable) oversight- what do you think follows?
Disneyland? A safer America? Fuck No!
What follows is the same sort thing that has gone on for countless years in countries that the US used to decry for their cruel and unusual punishment. Basically anybody who disagrees with government or corporate policies loud enough or anyone who they think is a threat will disappear - They'll possibly be subject to torturous interrogation techniques and then will disappear (does it matter if it's into a mass grave, a shallow grave, a secret prison or a FEMA detention center)?
I am sure that there are government supremacists or apologists who will claim this sort of talk is overdoing it or exaggerating - probably the same people who claimed it was exaggeration when I warned everyone I knew about how dangerous the Patriot Act was/is - all I heard was "It sunsets in 2005" and "this is for extraordinary circumstances, it's all a cycle, it will turn the other way" and other similar useless crap.
This is America. WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT- WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO. This is our system of checks and balances and it's going, going, practically gone.
There are Americans who just refuse to see it. It doesn't fit their paradigm or occur to them as even being within the realm of possibility that our system is terminally corrupt and heading at warp speed in an anti-freedom, anti-human, and COMPLETELY anti-American direction.
Especially now that "Homeland Security" is a commodity.
What are we going to do? What are you going to do? (don't give me that vote crap - I'm not saying not to vote, I'm just saying if you can even get an honest election and an honest politician that's not going to happen soon enough).
I think people are starting to wake up. Finally, but then what? -
Hitler. Halocaust. (I've just fucked us all).
I was going to say:
"Im so sick of their bullshit; (that goes for the MPAA And the RIAA).
Rather than using their brains and attempting to understand and possibly even benefit from something they are not going to be able to control they act like crazed luddites with fascistrabies (i'm convinced this disease exists and is running rampant in the US. -
Everytime we hear something from these tools it's more outlandish and restrictive than the last lame ass legislation they've tried to induce via whatever backdoor lophole extralegal method they haven't yet exhausted. "
- but instead I think I will just laugh at the futility and desparateness of every move they make. The only thing that stops my laughter from continuing is when I think about the general caliber of person in Government in the US. Then I realize that it is possible that they might get one of these things passed and life would suck for the short amount of time it took for the market and the public to respond to the digital handcuffs on their devices.
While I am sure there are dissenting viewpoints here and probably even people who support these sorts of abuses of power and the general incremental march towards fascism and tow the US Govt line, I think in general /. has a lot of really intelligent and insightful people who don't think that these things are right.
So I ask this question to those who do feel that what is/has been happening in the US in regard to abuse of power, using propaganda and political trickery via machiavellian machinations to control "public opinion" and taking away civil liberties in the name of "safety" or the "neverending-always-justified-war-on-terror" is totally insane and beyond the pale:
At what point do you say enough is enough? What has to happen? And what do we do then?
(...maybe something other than "vote all incumbents out." I think that goes without saying but unfortunately in many cases I think that the system is so broken by what I consider institutionalized corruption built into the process (I.E. things are are cosindered legal but which completely undermine the democratic process) not to mention the totally illegal stuff that we all know goes on sometimes)
The RIAA's use for artists is analogous to the Farmer's use for cattle. All they care about is money, stopping competition, destroying anything that threatens the status quo of their powerful position in regard to the industry - even when it's something consumers and artists want, if they can't control it and it doesn't fit into their paradigm then they would rather see it gone. Anything they say about "protecting artists" is about as genuine as Bush when he speaks about "freedom." They are protecting their racket.
Are you kidding me? I am sure "CountBrass" is your real name. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and it is a good one in theory - but in the real world if you piss off a large corporation or government agency there is no guarantee of safety or protection - even if....no actually, especially if you are a whistleblower exposing the abuses of the powerful. Let's say you work for an oil company; or the dept. of water and power; or, better yet, and every more relevant - let's say you work as an analyst for a government intelligence agency. Let's say that you find out that something shady is going on, or they are doing something that puts their workers or the public at risk - or let's say that you worked for the government in intelligence and found out that they were lying about crucial intelligence or had perpetrated a fraud among the American people. Many times in the past couple of years when someone has found out about something and reported it under whistleblower statutes they've gotten screwed. Look into it, ADM - Sibel Edmonds. Whether it's a large corporation or the government in most cases they are going to go into what I call "COVER YOUR ASS" mode. With a company, they can fire and slander you. They don't need a reason anymore. With the government they'll defame you and claim national security and make you out to be the bad guy. When you stand to lose a job or your freedom because you stood up and did the right thing you may feel different about posting anonymously - and as far as elected officials are concerned - if they can't deal with anonymous comments people make online (no matter what they are) they shouldn't be running for public office.
It took you a while, but that's pretty funny. (but then it's really not funny if you really think about it...) but then...it kinda is.
This is absurd; it's absurd that these things are copyrighted in a way that makes them want to enforce it to cause problems for a person who is innovating and basically doing a public service for free.
I remember a couple of years ago we used to have an MTA subway map shower curtain - It was pretty cool. Obviously my gf paid for that and I guess under our copyright system (which is incredibly flawed in my opinion)I am sure that the copyright holder (probably MTA in that instance) got money. Had this guy been printing shirts or using the map for monetary gain, their sort of heavy handed response might make more sense.... The more I think about it, they're probably pissed that they didn't think of it first and offer to sell it - my guess is that is what they will do now.
However - as it is it just seems like another expression of an idea I have seen expressed a lot lately by big business (including the US govt) - that citizens or companies doing anything helpful to the general public for free must not be tolerated - (because don't you know - it's a form of communism or socialism)- like free wifi that Philly tried to implement before the politicorpwhores stepped in an rejiggered it and made it much less cool.
One thing that he or anyone could do is get some people together who kind of want to turn the tables and make a better, even more useful and more aesthetically pleasing version. He could offer it for free - possibly copyright it himself if nesscessary using creative commmons or some other new saner form of copyright that protects him when he offers it for free.
I guess they don't consider extortion by big business stealing
I guess to them stealing is only stealing when it's an individual (usually a minor) who they can then threaten with a lawsuit
(Isn't that extortion also?,)
Yeah - that's nice - Canada definitely rocks. However, A lot of Americans stand up to big business too; and until you Canadians tell your police to stop enforcing US federal law by proxy (just ask Marc Emery) I think you may want to reassess your ball size.
I'm an American - I know my government well - in my opinion they should not be totally in control of any aspect of the internet. It's too important to the entire world and I think that (especially lately) the US government has shown that the only thing it cares about is power and control. Power and control over the world's resources, regardless of what that means to the people who own, live near or have interests in those things.
To them, they view the internet as a military tool. Nothing more. When I say that I don't mean for their own direct use, they have their internet2 or whatever - they see it as something to be controlled. Just like if you want to control access to a city militarily one of the things you want to do is control all bridges or access points. They want to retain that ability.
Yes, I am aware of the internets beginnings. Al Gore worked very hard. - (is that joke way too old and played out?...sorry). No seriously I am aware of the internet's beginnings and the progression from Arpanet etc - it's not the same as it was. It is like comparing a child to an adult. Though its parents (US military, research, and academic communities - who basically work with the military in many cases) could control it when it was a 2 year old - they should not have full control over it as an adult. The entire world relies on it too much.
The current administration doesn't believe in international law or in any sort of cooperation with anything or anybody unless it suits their own interests. What they do believe in is Orwellian doublespeak about freedom and compassion - don't get me wrong, these issues are mot limited to the current administration either - they are just a very extreme example of it in my opinion.
Personally, I believe control of the root servers and everything else that makes up the backbone of the net should be spread out - both for redundency's sake and to prevent any one country for being a complete failure point (whether it's from a tyrant taking control or a natural disaster) or from having so much say over what happens that they control everything.
This may not be realistic presently. I know that the major fiber lines are probably owned by large corporations...
oh...WTF should we all just give up and put a giant glowing "TM: A wholly owned subsidiary of the United States" in orbit around the earth so that when visitors from other planets see Earth in their telescopes or viewports they will know right away who owns and runs things? WTF?
It's just one more example of the the institutionalized corruption in our country - using the loophole/sneak style of legislation, using laws or rules in a spirit which is contrary to democracy; and this isn't even one of the more egregious examples.
So let's say they finally get this thing passed. How long before someone discovers a workaround or codes a hack? Probably not long.
Make it so that people can't record or tivo their "fixes" (TV is the drug of choice, at least in the US), they'll be pissed and the resourceful will find away around it. What then? throw em in jail? I wouldn't be surprised if thats what these "Associations" try to do.
TPS reports are one thing...
But ESO issues are where the real fun begins!!!
ESO - "Equipment superior to operator."
If only it were trolling...
The thing is - they pretty much are saying that and you barely have to read between the lines to see it - those lines are getting further apart by the second.
What really gets me is all the people who roll over say "Well, they know what's best."
(They: choose Govt or Media or Corporate authority of your choice)
I totally agree with your post (the 1-8 points) - but here is the problem as I see it:
Such a candidate would never make it to a ballot.
The requirements to get on the ballot are insane, it requires an awful lot of money and signatures. Look at what happened to Nader - regardless of how you feel about the guy, even as well known and well backed as he was he had a hard time (and I'm not referring to the fact that he was viewed by some as a spoiler or as being responsible for Bush winning in 2000) I'm talking about all of the hoops he was made to jump through and the ways they found little technicalities to keep him from ballots and the way the media worked on him.
I am afraid that if a party (or candidate)came along that truly challenged the dominance of either of the 2 parties, here is what would happen:
They would use every legal means to make it hard for the candidate or party.
If that didn't work -
They'd find technicalities or cause other types of problems.
If that didn't work -
They'd dig into the past of the candidate/party and all associates to find anything potentionally embarrassing or discrediting and use the media to assail this person/party.
If that didn't work -
They'd manipulate/create a situation to accomplish the above -
If that didn't work -
Assuming anybody could make it through the gauntlet of challenges above (maybe someone should design a video game) - then they'd probably have some sort of accident (car, plane, whatever) - or possibly would commit suicide by slashing their own wrists and shooting themselves 7 times in the head.
I also agree that it will get worse before there is a chance of it getting better. In some ways we have lost our republic.
I am not saying it is impossible for things to improve, but I think that the public at large has to realize how much they are being manipulated by the media/polls/politicians and how truly corrupt the system is. It seems that a lot of people are finally realizing this.
On a related note I would urge everyone to read up on FEMA and the COG plan - what happens when FEMA declares a national emergency (the constitution is suspended - congress cannot intervene for 6 months at least) - I would urge them to read up on how this agency was created and the purpose, as well as all the executive orders that apply to FEMA and the COG.
The COG plan has been in place since the late 70s. It has been activated and fully functional since late 2001. This means that there is a parallel government operating in bunkers in the US right now waiting to take control should an emergency be declared. There does not have to be a ctastrophic attack. Do you know who these people are who will take control of the country after the constitution has been suspended?
Of course not. Their identities are secret - but the plan is not. I know this sounds like tin-foil hat material, but you can check into it for yourself.
Okay, I went off on a tangent there - but it is related. With what experts and people in power are saying about "peak oil" and terrorism etc, it will be a wonder if we have have another election, let alone one that's not a sham.
You really think that the US government is answerable to the people?
(I know they are supposed to be, and I know that's the big illusion that we all participate in - well, I don't anymore, but...)
In the US the Govt. and large multinational corporations are so incestuously intertwined that lately in many situations it is unclear who is really making policy.
- Not that it matters which one of them truly is, because at this point in time being answerable to the people is only something they are interested in portraying - not in actually practicing.
Trying to limit political speech online (and don't let the title of this "act" fool you, that's what it's about. In general these days the title of the law usually is opposite to it's true purpose. It's like a fucking George Orwell nightmare that just keeps getting worse.
Yes - it did apply to regular everyday people. That was the point.
(As the previous response to your reply has already noted).
I don't claim to know everything, and certainly am willing to admit when I am wrong, but I do know enough about this era of American history - (including the Constitution and texts that preceeded and followed it - (I.E. Federalist Papers, proposed amendments of Anti-Federalists, etc) as well as the context of what was happening in the colonies and England as well as the rest of the world around this time) to know that.
This was about citizens being armed - in large part so that they had some protection should an army or their own government become tyrannical.
I totally agree with you on this.
That was a huge violation of these people's rights (and of the 2nd amendment). They were confiscating firearms from people who lawfully owned them and had done nothing wrong. This was an abuse of power and I think it had a lot more to do with setting a precedent then the actual situation in NOLA at that time.
I was outraged when I heard about this so I looked into how it was that they were able to even think about doing this legally - what I was told was that the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans have laws that allow this. I don't know if that is all there is to it, or if those laws supercede the constitution in an emergency.
What I am told is that Louisiana has a provision to declare state emergencies (which they have done) and a lot of restrictive powers come with it.
Even with that said, I still think that this was improper and dangerous. There is a reason why we have the 2nd amendment, and that reason is just as viable now (probably more so)as it was when it was written.
For a city, state, or federal government to disarm law abiding American citizens for any reason when they have done no wrong, ESPECIALLY during a time of crisis or emergency is something that should concern everybody. It's tyrannical and dangerous to our country.
I have no problem with weapons being taken away from people committing criminal acts or people on the street looting or acting in a threatening manner - but going to someone's house and detaining them and handcuffing them, searching and removing their guns because you claim "we are afraid people won't want to be forcibly eveacuated from their homes and might get jumpy." - well, do I even need to characterize that?
Well, that's good news I guess. Thanks for the info - I'll have to check into those - If they truly put some independence into that process then I hope that they make it, and if they make it and pass then I really hope they turn out to have the impact that the people who support them hope they will.
I know a lot of people in Ohio were outraged, as were a lot of informed people throughout the country - but when I say "barely a peep.." what I mean is that if things like this get reported at all in the mainstream media they are quickly mentioned and then never again, or are glossed over; thus it doesn't truly enter the "national discourse."
Actually I guess "national discourse" is not the best term - perhaps a more accurate term these days would be whatever joe six-pack discusses with his family and around the water cooler after catching his nightly "mindless stream of 'infotainment' with it's patented blend o' celebrity gossip, titillation via sex and violence, 1 tbsp of crime/terror fear with a healthy dose of propaganda and finger pointing so people think something is being done in their interest" that gets endlessly regurgitated.
I'm not trying to sound overly cynical or anything, but that's what I see. Calling that kind of stuff news is like filling a bottle with 60% water, 35% high fructose corn syrup, 3% piss and 2% real apple juice and selling it to the public as "Nature's Finest Apple Juice." It might look good and taste good, but it's nasty, misleading, and bad for you in more ways than one.
With things like this Diebold issue, I just wish more people - more everyday non-techie Americans who trust their government and who don't know anything other than turning on Fox or NBC to get their news had access to more sources of news that aren't corporate mouthpieces or focused on ratings. Even NPR isn't immune from agenda and big money politics.
I wish they remembered that checks and balances exist for a reason. My hope is that the civics and government teachers out there who are aware of all of the compromises that are being made are informing their students to check into these things. I can't imagine how (if I were a civics teacher) I would explain what's happening in today's America alongside what I was taught about the purpose of three branches of government and checks and balances. We aren't supposed to have blind faith or trust in our government. We are not supposed to have to.
What's really upsetting is that so many people think all of these things are just coincedences or accidents, or are do to laziness. All of the information about Diebold's lack of security and the ease to which their machines could be tampered with was available to the entire world before the election - as well as the insane conflicts of interest involving the ownership of the company and their promises to deliver certain states to Bush. This, along with all of the reports (by credible sources including city and state governmental workers) of misconduct in Ohio and still ...barely a peep.
I mean, really, i'm not a democrat or a republican - but damn - I am sick of the US being run by criminals and corporations (of which many are run by or for the benefit of criminals) - and when I say criminals - these people are criminals - white collar or otherwise. People think Enron was the eception rather than the rule - well, sorry, that's not quite the case - it's more prevalent than that. I'm not saying all corporations are evil or anything like that...I'm just sick of people being in denial about how corrupt America business and politics and the incestuous relationship between them is. Apathy reigns.
I know the answer, but I can't help asking: Don't people know their history?
When business and government collude to this degree where business basically calls the shots with profit above all else it doesn't end well. There is a word for it actually.
Diebold needs to be put in check - seriously. Evoting with no paper trail or verification system is absurb - it pratically guarantees misconduct on some level.
And this is certainly one thing to consider when you think about why someone would do this - The government and big business and slimy groups like the RIAA and MPAA (who think it's okay to have your computer to ensure that you're aren't doing anything they consider wrong, and don't think shey should be liable if they happen to damage it) have a lot of money and many forms of coercion, bribery and inteimidation to accomplish their goals. THey'd like nothing better than to take over something they know people depend upon to keep p2p free of shams. Just reading that Erwin guy's response, to me it seems fairly obvious that he is using fear based tactics to try to scare people from even really looking into the situation....
Sure, they can take away my inkjet refill syringe... -WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!!! (printing bumper stickers right now - got my whole posse of ink refillin' scofflaws ready to paint the town red!)
+ 10 of my imaginary mod points.