Under McCain and Palin they'd probably outlaw computers that don't run on fossil fuel.
Hahahaha, you owe me a monitor and a new cup of coffee for that:)
The speech is worth watching for other issues besides tech. Gives some good insight into the direction that Obama wants to take us towards in this global economy.
Of course if you are like me and live in The Empire State your vote is just padding anyway. Good to see that people are still excited though -- I lost a lot of my faith after Obama's reversal on FISA. I suppose I should suck that up and get back to work now.... the GOP convention was all the reminder I needed of why I'm a Democrat (in spite of their many flaws)
Ray,If you are looking for more information on Obama's tech policy check out the speech [youtube.com] that he gave at Google awhile back. That was before he got assimilated by the campaign and party and actually spoke with some amount of candor......
Thanks, Shakrai. Actually, I don't feel like I need to undertake a lot of research to know that technology in general, and the internet in particular, will be a lot safer and freer under Obama than it would be under McCain. Under McCain and Palin they'd probably outlaw computers that don't run on fossil fuel.
As an American politician, let's be fair that this candidate you speak of is just another pragmatic power-grabber, too dull to be productive, so damned to be a front for her financial backers. As such, she'll believe in precisely nothing, and say what she thinks will win votes (if that's still a requirement in America).
Good points. On all counts. At this time, with so many of the states having adopted optical scanning for the voting, the Republicans may have stolen the election already. Which is the most important 'technology' issue of all.
Anyone who votes for candidates because they say they have 'faith' is a moron.
1. Belief in God has nothing to with whether a person has the attributes for leadership.
2. True people of faith don't wear their faith on their sleeves and brag about it; they walk humbly, respect and honor other human beings, and never assume that their 'faith' makes them better than someone else or that their faith is right while someone else's is wrong.
No I am not a 'psychic'. But I am an intelligent consumer. And I don't buy bull.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
--Obama
This is the viewpoint on religion that earned my vote.
The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.
Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company.
So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality.
--Obama
This is why he earned my vote on technology. It was recorded 2 years ago, so he isn't just acting nice for the election.
Thanks, Digital. Good information. I appreciate it.
That money goes into the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is like welfare for the entire state of Alaska. She managed to increase that by $500 (with Alaska taking in $1.87 for every dollar it paid in Federal taxes).
So she not only took millions of dollars from everyone not in Alaska to give away as part of a government welfare program, she increased our gas prices to help do it by taking money from the oil companies to spend on welfare checks!
Some "libertarian"! She took money from the other 49 states to bribe the people of Alaska for their votes! No wonder she had such a high approval rating...
Interesting. I guess it pays to be 'red state' governor who plays ball with "W".
So you say that every one claims to believe in God, but some do not.
Would not the worst people then be those that claim to do so only for political expediency?
Yes.
Should we not seek to elect those that generally tell us what they are actually thinking?
Can't remember when was the last time I saw one of those.
Palin is a social conservative, raised taxes numerous times, expanded the size of government in both her role as mayor and governor, and made questionable use of eminent domain to seize private property in a manner that had previously been unprecedented in Alaska.
Basically, her position is the exact opposite of the libertarian one on most issues you care to look at.
Well let's be charitable here. She 'stood up' to the big oil interests and made them give her government a piece of the action. Once she got her cut, then it was okay for them to drill anywhere they liked... offshore... wildlife preserves... anywhere at all.
So let's assume she will be open-minded towards technologists, too... so long as she gets her cut.
... thanks, not only for the objective insight which permeates much of your postings, nor the informative summaries that accompany your submissions, nor even for the occasional comedic relief provided by your dry wit, but for writing a summary that *doesn't* end in a rhetorical question.
(seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
That's a damnable lie. Sometimes they end with questions that aren't rhetorical at all.
Well thanks for the advice. And for the kind words.
I don't think I was attacking the justice system in Judge Owen's courtroom. I was saying that the pendency of a federal litigation against a poor or working class person can have the effect of wrecking his or her life, and that it should therefore be based upon a sound pre-litigation investigation. Which, as you are well aware, the RIAA cases are not.
As to where and by whom I get invited for coffee, and how good the coffee is.... I think you know I don't care about such things.
Most of the cost comes about because lawyers and judges have an incentive to make things more complex. There is no incentive for the court system to make things simpler so a normal person can litigate.
A good example of this is the laws against regular people practising law.
There is no law against people representing themselves in court.
As to non-lawyers representing other people...... well I don't think you'd want me taking your appendix out. The risk of mortality would go way up.
I fully agree with you that the courts need to watch out for those cases where one side has all the money in the world to burn on litigating, and the other side doesn't have any. I was just saying to eldavojohn that Viacom v. YouTube isn't one of them. Google has all the money it needs to defend itself. And Viacom is going to get..... buried.
where the party litigating with the content-maniacs is a corporation which has the resources to get good lawyering
That, precisely, is the problem many see with the legal system.
I agree wholeheartedly that that is one of the major problems with the legal system. And many judges agree with that, too. Which is why the Judicial Section of the American Bar Association published an issue of its quarterly magazine devoted solely to the problem of providing "equal access to justice", why they invited me to write an article on the problem with "unequal" access to justice in the RIAA litigations, and why I spent many many hours writing that article.
That is why You may not agree that that is a problem
I can't for the life of me see how you could accuse me of that
but then, I see you as part of the system.
Well obviously I am part of the system, albeit a powerless part. I don't know why you want to disparage me over it. I do the best I can.
..the judges are starting to wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on them.
Anyone with a little bit of technical knowledge knew what these cases were full of BS when they started.
Agreed.
Yet, it took the legal system how many months to understand that?
Years. Not months. Years.
And how many lives were ruined because the judiciary did not make sure that the judges had some subject knowledge before they were assigned these cases?
Many, many lives were ruined. And when, in May 2006, I stood up to a judge who had no understanding whatsoever of anything that was in issue, and told him that 'lives are being ruined' by these cases, he said that because I had said that, he wouldn't believe anything else I could say.
I'm not attacking you here. I'm not attacking YouTube here. Hell, I'm not even really attacking Viacom. I'm criticizing our Justice Department in several regards. Don't take this personally!
I didn't. And I know you didn't take my disagreement with you personally either. I'm a big fan of yours. I just love a good argument.
I don't mean to say our justice system is perfect. Far from it, I've recently been quite critical of the way the RIAA cases are being handled, and made 15 specific suggestions on how the federal judiciary could improve its track record and provide a more level playing field. But I will tell you that in the big cases -- where the party litigating with the content-maniacs is a corporation which has the resources to get good lawyering -- the results have not been so terrible. And even in the RIAA cases, where the defendants are invariably overmatched, the judges are starting to wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on them.
By the way, if you think Io v. Veoh didn't worry Viacom, why do you think they requested permission to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Io? The judge denied their request (PDF), but no doubt read the brief and heard everything Viacom, and its lawyers, had to say. I don't think he was impressed.
Viacom can say whatever it wants to say in its press releases. But I don't think Judge Stanton will be even remotely impressed. He will want to know why they tied up his docket, when they had nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Under McCain and Palin they'd probably outlaw computers that don't run on fossil fuel.
Hahahaha, you owe me a monitor and a new cup of coffee for that :)
The speech is worth watching for other issues besides tech. Gives some good insight into the direction that Obama wants to take us towards in this global economy.
Of course if you are like me and live in The Empire State your vote is just padding anyway. Good to see that people are still excited though -- I lost a lot of my faith after Obama's reversal on FISA. I suppose I should suck that up and get back to work now.... the GOP convention was all the reminder I needed of why I'm a Democrat (in spite of their many flaws)
Yeah me too. These are some very scary people.
Ray,If you are looking for more information on Obama's tech policy check out the speech [youtube.com] that he gave at Google awhile back. That was before he got assimilated by the campaign and party and actually spoke with some amount of candor......
Thanks, Shakrai. Actually, I don't feel like I need to undertake a lot of research to know that technology in general, and the internet in particular, will be a lot safer and freer under Obama than it would be under McCain. Under McCain and Palin they'd probably outlaw computers that don't run on fossil fuel.
As an American politician, let's be fair that this candidate you speak of is just another pragmatic power-grabber, too dull to be productive, so damned to be a front for her financial backers. As such, she'll believe in precisely nothing, and say what she thinks will win votes (if that's still a requirement in America).
Good points. On all counts. At this time, with so many of the states having adopted optical scanning for the voting, the Republicans may have stolen the election already. Which is the most important 'technology' issue of all.
Anyone who votes for candidates because they say they have 'faith' is a moron.
1. Belief in God has nothing to with whether a person has the attributes for leadership.
2. True people of faith don't wear their faith on their sleeves and brag about it; they walk humbly, respect and honor other human beings, and never assume that their 'faith' makes them better than someone else or that their faith is right while someone else's is wrong.
No I am not a 'psychic'. But I am an intelligent consumer. And I don't buy bull.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
--Obama
This is the viewpoint on religion that earned my vote.
The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes. Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company. So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality.
--Obama
This is why he earned my vote on technology. It was recorded 2 years ago, so he isn't just acting nice for the election.
Thanks, Digital. Good information. I appreciate it.
That money goes into the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is like welfare for the entire state of Alaska. She managed to increase that by $500 (with Alaska taking in $1.87 for every dollar it paid in Federal taxes). So she not only took millions of dollars from everyone not in Alaska to give away as part of a government welfare program, she increased our gas prices to help do it by taking money from the oil companies to spend on welfare checks! Some "libertarian"! She took money from the other 49 states to bribe the people of Alaska for their votes! No wonder she had such a high approval rating...
Interesting. I guess it pays to be 'red state' governor who plays ball with "W".
So you say that every one claims to believe in God, but some do not. Would not the worst people then be those that claim to do so only for political expediency?
Yes.
Should we not seek to elect those that generally tell us what they are actually thinking?
Can't remember when was the last time I saw one of those.
uh oh
Every one of the US leaders has said they believed in a Supreme Being...
There, fixed that for you.
Palin is a social conservative, raised taxes numerous times, expanded the size of government in both her role as mayor and governor, and made questionable use of eminent domain to seize private property in a manner that had previously been unprecedented in Alaska. Basically, her position is the exact opposite of the libertarian one on most issues you care to look at.
Well let's be charitable here. She 'stood up' to the big oil interests and made them give her government a piece of the action. Once she got her cut, then it was okay for them to drill anywhere they liked... offshore... wildlife preserves... anywhere at all.
So let's assume she will be open-minded towards technologists, too... so long as she gets her cut.
What influence would any V.P. have over national education? None, I think.
Yeah, well you're missing the point of what a V.P. is. Let me review that for you: The V.P. is one that becomes the P. if something happens to the P.
Has anyone RTFA?
Yes. But not me.
I started to read it, but found that it was "offtopic", since it didn't deliver what its headline promised.
Sarah Palin is not a libertarian
Correct, but perhaps she's a libertine.
Here is where she stands on technology.
Me, I think I usually ask questions because I want to know the answers. Which means they're not "rhetorical" at all.
The person who suggested that I do it to provoke reader interest doesn't know me very well. I'm much too unsophisticated for that level of planning.
Yeah, that was a good one.
But why do I ask those questions?
... thanks, not only for the objective insight which permeates much of your postings, nor the informative summaries that accompany your submissions, nor even for the occasional comedic relief provided by your dry wit, but for writing a summary that *doesn't* end in a rhetorical question. (seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
That's a damnable lie. Sometimes they end with questions that aren't rhetorical at all.
Well thanks for the advice. And for the kind words.
I don't think I was attacking the justice system in Judge Owen's courtroom. I was saying that the pendency of a federal litigation against a poor or working class person can have the effect of wrecking his or her life, and that it should therefore be based upon a sound pre-litigation investigation. Which, as you are well aware, the RIAA cases are not.
As to where and by whom I get invited for coffee, and how good the coffee is.... I think you know I don't care about such things.
You're a pretty complicated person. I'm not, I'm a simple man.
Every day I speak to people whose lives are being wrecked by these lawsuits.
I was just telling it like it is.
Most of the cost comes about because lawyers and judges have an incentive to make things more complex. There is no incentive for the court system to make things simpler so a normal person can litigate. A good example of this is the laws against regular people practising law.
There is no law against people representing themselves in court.
As to non-lawyers representing other people...... well I don't think you'd want me taking your appendix out. The risk of mortality would go way up.
No problem, homer_s.
I fully agree with you that the courts need to watch out for those cases where one side has all the money in the world to burn on litigating, and the other side doesn't have any. I was just saying to eldavojohn that Viacom v. YouTube isn't one of them. Google has all the money it needs to defend itself. And Viacom is going to get..... buried.
Why, thank you, bennomatic.
where the party litigating with the content-maniacs is a corporation which has the resources to get good lawyering
That, precisely, is the problem many see with the legal system.
I agree wholeheartedly that that is one of the major problems with the legal system. And many judges agree with that, too. Which is why the Judicial Section of the American Bar Association published an issue of its quarterly magazine devoted solely to the problem of providing "equal access to justice", why they invited me to write an article on the problem with "unequal" access to justice in the RIAA litigations, and why I spent many many hours writing that article.
That is why You may not agree that that is a problem
I can't for the life of me see how you could accuse me of that
but then, I see you as part of the system.
Well obviously I am part of the system, albeit a powerless part. I don't know why you want to disparage me over it. I do the best I can.
..the judges are starting to wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on them.
Anyone with a little bit of technical knowledge knew what these cases were full of BS when they started.
Agreed.
Yet, it took the legal system how many months to understand that?
Years. Not months. Years.
And how many lives were ruined because the judiciary did not make sure that the judges had some subject knowledge before they were assigned these cases?
Many, many lives were ruined. And when, in May 2006, I stood up to a judge who had no understanding whatsoever of anything that was in issue, and told him that 'lives are being ruined' by these cases, he said that because I had said that, he wouldn't believe anything else I could say.
Not only did you mark it as a joke, but your satire of the earlier exchanges was clear, and the joke was funny, to me at least.
And as the person who was being satirized, I concur wholeheartedly. I laughed when I read it, and would have modded it "Funny".
I'm not attacking you here. I'm not attacking YouTube here. Hell, I'm not even really attacking Viacom. I'm criticizing our Justice Department in several regards. Don't take this personally!
I didn't. And I know you didn't take my disagreement with you personally either. I'm a big fan of yours. I just love a good argument.
I don't mean to say our justice system is perfect. Far from it, I've recently been quite critical of the way the RIAA cases are being handled, and made 15 specific suggestions on how the federal judiciary could improve its track record and provide a more level playing field. But I will tell you that in the big cases -- where the party litigating with the content-maniacs is a corporation which has the resources to get good lawyering -- the results have not been so terrible. And even in the RIAA cases, where the defendants are invariably overmatched, the judges are starting to wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on them.
By the way, if you think Io v. Veoh didn't worry Viacom, why do you think they requested permission to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Io? The judge denied their request (PDF), but no doubt read the brief and heard everything Viacom, and its lawyers, had to say. I don't think he was impressed.
Viacom can say whatever it wants to say in its press releases. But I don't think Judge Stanton will be even remotely impressed. He will want to know why they tied up his docket, when they had nothing.