The Free Expression of Thought is never useless. Just because you think "classic video games of the 70s" is a waste of space does not mean the owner, or his visitors, think it's a waste. Don't be elitist. Support egalitarianism (where all people have a right to pursue their own hobbies, and share their thoughts with the world). Don't sit there and say what is or is not "acceptable speech". It is ALL acceptable because we ALL have an inalienable right to speak our minds freely.
CANADA:
What will likely happen is that Rogers (the consumer) will located a new ISP provider that will not throttle their bandwidth and then say, "Goodbye Bell". That's how the free market works.
>>>"Anyone with two working neurons KNOWS that cables are "just there" and cost ZERO beyond basic maintenance."
Anyone with two neurons also realizes that (1) you need manpower to replace the cables operating if they break, or to control traffic flow, or to replace burnt-out servers, or to replace air conditioning units in central buildings, or whatever contingency arises. And (2) since cables are finite, bandwidth is finite, therefore it's necessary to lay MORE cables to handle the ever-growing size of internet downloads (in 1990: just a few bytes of text... in 2008: terabytes of video).
As file sizes have grown steadily larger, so too has the need to lay more cables.
That costs money. (As does the manpower required.)
>>>"the fact that DRM makes something like this necessary is truly infuriating."
Yes it is.
I think I'll just buying music. That will be the ultimate outcome if music companies keep insisting upon making music a CHORE instead of a pleasure. People will just quit.
Fortunately there's still ~1500 years of public domain music out there (monk chants, baroque, classical, romantic) that I can download and hear for free. I don't need to buy their modern "pop" music if they insist upon treating me like a thief & making things difficult.
First off, "free healthcare" is not a right. YES, you have a right to go to a doctor and say, "Please heal me," but you do NOT have a right to raid your neighbors' wallets, steal their money, and make them pay for your new heart. (Anymore than you can raid their wallets and force them to buy you a new Lexus.) On the contrary, that's a violation of your neighbors' right to property & theft of their labor.
- You have a right to healhcare. - You don't have a right to violate your neighbors' rights. - You don't have a right to steal their labor for your own benefit (which is what the Cotton Plantation Masters used to do).
.
Second, the flow of power is like so:
The People (the ultimate authority from which all power derives)
| \/ The States (bound by their respective contracts between the People & the government)
| \/ Constitutional Convention (states' representatives)
| \/ Federal Constitution (the contract which the national gov't & states are bound to follow)
Although the Federal Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" that law derives its power from the consent of the governed (the States Legislatures and the People), and can be changed via amendment or constitutional convention by the Constitution's contractual parties.
My view of government is described in the American Declaration of Independence.
- The People are the ultimate authority. - The government only exists because the People created it. - It is granted SOME power by the People to protect human rights (unified defense, for example). - All other powers not granted to the government by the Constitutional contract, is reserved to the People.
That's my view of government, and it is supplemented by Thomas Jefferson's writings. For example he wrote, "If it were possible to have no government at all, we would do it. It is only to secure our rights that we resort to any government at all." James Madison made a similar comment, "If men were angels, we would not need government."
So the job of government is to be a servant to its master (the People) and protect individual rights.
And nothing else.
i.e. The government's job is Not to raid my neighbors' wallets, take their money, and give it to me so I can buy a house. That is Not the job or purpose for which the People created the government. On the contrary, such an action violates my neighbors' rights of property and labor.
I thought Barak wanted the *corporation* to pay the healthcare bill, not the citizens.
I would describe that as middle-of-the-road solution, because the People are still free to take the corporate-provided insurance (or not), and so freedom is still preserved.
You keep trying to apply an European model to an American system. That does not work, because we have different traditions.
In America left == liberal and right == conservative. Left == larger government (to provide programs for the poor) and right == less government (to give people more freedom). Left == Democrat and right == Republican. That's just how it works here, and our system is completely different from your European system.
Another card people like to use is the Child Card which is still very effective.
"We need to require all cars have Tire Pressure monitors. It will help save children's lives." "We need to ban all guns. It will save children's lives." (never mind that guns also kill criminals & protect) "We must appropriate $1 trillion dollars for food stamps. It's for the children."
Oftentimes, the best thing to help children is to stop the gov't from interfering with parents' decisions. i.e. Butt out & let parents do their job.
Since the sun does not have air (all substances are torn-apart and exist only as plasma), there would be no sound. If you tried to dip a microphone into the sun and record it, you'd just have a vaporized microphone.
Like I care about that EULA. I've been "illegally" using software since my first Commodore 64 and some games I downloaded off a BBS. I'm not putting some stupid sticker on my IBM-compatible just to make Apple jolly. I'll buy and use Safari whenever I feel like it, even though I am not using Apple hardware.
GREED.
That's the core issue here. The corporations like Apple/Microsoft want to make users pay again-and-again-and-again for the same software, but when it comes time for THEM to pay up (Indian taxes) then suddenly they don't want to. They don't want to pay.
Hypocrites. If we users have to "pay up" for the privilege of using Windoze, then so too should you pay-up Mr. Microsoft for the privilege of access to the Indian market. Stop trying to be like a thief in the night & skirting around the law. The users paid; now it's your turn to pay Microsoft.
Copyright law should be rewritten so it's "per user". In other words you pay for a song once, and that's it. If you want to move your CD over to an MP3 file, you can, as long as you keep the original CD as "proof of purchase". (And if you don't have the original, then you can be prosecuted.)
It's ridiculous that I have to buy the same song multiple times (first cassette, then CD, now Itunes download) just because I switch formats.
Either that or "greed" on the part of money-hungry companies desiring to sell the same song again-and-again-and-again.
Don't eat cholesterol. Then you won't have to worry about it damaging your brain. (Just a thought; I'm not a doctor.)
I wonder how caffeine is supposed to reduce Alzheimer's disease? My dad drank a cup of coffee every day, but it doesn't seem to stop him from forgetting everything.
>>>"The point of advertising is to get me to want something I don't need (because if I needed it, I could not wait around for an advertiser to "educate me about his valuable product/service"). That is, by definition, a waste of my time."
When I read comments like these, I find them incomprehensible. You see, I don't see ads. Literally. My brain focuses on the task at hand, and ignores any ads that may be flashing at the top of the screen. For example I was just visiting youtube, and I know there was an ad there, but I have absolutely no idea what it was about. It didn't even register.
So ads do Not waste my time.
I don't even see them.
Doesn't bother me at all, and I'd rather have the advertisers providing free service, then to have to pay the actual cost of my favorite television dramas (~$2000 a year) or websites. Free is better than paying.
"Kill them with kindness" is the approach we're using with China. I'm not convinced it's working. While they have developed a free market, China is still an authoritarian state. And they are becoming strong economically... pretty soon they'll use that strength to buy weapons, and possibly be a threat to America and Europe (both militarily and as an economic powerhouse). China right now looks like Germany or Japan in the 1930s, minus the crazed dictator. China is strong.
IMHO the approach we used with Russia was far more effective: Cut them off from trade until they go bankrupt, and then rebuild them as a Euro-style republic.
However there might be someone else who can gain knowledge, so I'll answer your question. The Niagara Dam took approximately 50 years to pay for the initial cost of building it (as is true with most major construction projects). Now that it's paid for, you might say all the electricity should be "free", but that's not true.
It still requires manpower to remove dirt away from the dam, so it does not get blocked. It requires manpower to adjust the flow of water to meet varying demands, and manpower to fix the machines if they break, or replace the high-tension wires that travel from Niagara to NYC if they fall down.
Manpower. Even if you don't pay these men wages (like slaves), they still have to be feed and clothed and sheltered. Food, clothes, shelter.
Yes it's really the case that a cable company pays a "per subscriber" fee for every channel on the dial (except locals which are essentially free). For FX it's about 40 cents per home. For Disney Channel around 80 cents, and for ESPN it's over 2 dollars per subscriber.
What?
Did you think all those original cable shows like Stargate or Monk or the Shield just appear? Nope. They have commercials, but they also supplement the ad income by charging Per Subscriber fees to the cable company (who ultimately passes the charge onto you). That money supports the cost of producing new television.
Back to a la carte:
If Comcast currently has 1 million homes subscribed to FX, and the new a la carte program results in half those homes dropping FX, then Comcast only has to pay half as much money in subscriber fees. That's how the CATV business works. Cable channels take their "per subscriber" fee very seriously, and it's often a major sticking point during Channel-to-cable company negotiations (the channel wants more money; the cable doesn't want to pay more).
And that filters down to us.
Subscriber fees are the key reason why cable has increased from $30 to $60 during the last ten years.
On one hand I agree with you. It makes sense to design systems for non-peak usage, as a way to save natural resources. The hybrid cars work on that principle (tiny ~70hp engine designed for average power; supplemented by an electric motor during peak demand).
But then I imagine what I-95 would be like if designed for nonpeak usage. It would not be 4 lanes, but just 2, and the morning commute to work would take me two hours, instead of 30 minutes.
200 billion is not a lot. That's my company's annual expenditure, and it's just a small company located in a DC suburb..
You're talking about wiring-up an entire nation. And no replacing analog phone lines with digital lines is not a "small" bump... it's a major undertaking requiring years of work and manpower. The country was not wired-up with phones overnight (it took about 50 years), and upgrading all those lines to digital also takes time.
Same with DSL.
Same with laying cable tv to formerly unconnected rural communities.
I see your point about "natural monopoly". An obvious case where it applies is the Natural Gas lines feeding into my house, but even there I have a choice of who supplies the fuel. (Ditto with my electricity - I have choice.)
As for internet, well there's no monopoly of any kind. You've got:
You can't claim there's a natural monopoly, because that simply isn't true. Therefore there's no justification for the government to "take over" the lines. Let the market remain overseen by the FCC, but still privatized.
That's the first thing that popped into my head when I read your story about how your car was "crippled" because you bought new wheels without sensors. Dumb.
In fact the whole idea is dumb.
There's nothing difficult about keeping your tires pressurized. And even if the tire does go flat, so what? I had 3 flats in the last year (old tires that literally fell apart), and it was no big deal. I just pulled-over and called AAA. Nothing dangerous about it.
I think this is a case of a government employee with nothing to do, so he escalated the idea to his bored boss, who called together a bunch of other people who had nothing to do, and to justify their existence on the payroll they came-up with this ridiculous idea.
Next I suppose they'll want to mandate "Wiper Sensors" that can detect when you need new blades, and force your car to slow to 40 if they are worn. I'm tired of gov't treating me like I'm a child and/or idiot.
I'd label Hillary Clinton as "authoritarian" because she says, "You must buy health insurance. You have no choice; if you don't buy insurance, you will be jailed (or fined)." That mandatory requirement that all citizens buy insurance is an authoritarian viewpoint, where citizens must follow the will of President Hillary (and/or the Congress) as if she were king.
I'd label Ron Paul as "libertarian" because he wants doctors to serve patients, and patients to "pay as they go" when they receive the bill. He also wants doctors to provide volunteer hours (free service) to those who are poor or needy. ----- He does Not want government to interfere in the doctor-patient interaction in any manner whatsoever, except in the case of malpractice lawsuits (the courts).
I'm not sure where Barak Obama or John McCain would land.
>>>Left: Looking after society from the bottom up. >>>Right: Looking after society from the top down.
I don't know how you can label the Leftist view of letting the government run everything (healthcare, housing, food) as a bottom-up approach. That sounds like a top-down approach to me (where the top mandates how citizens are supposed to live).
Personally I prefer "authoritarian" versus "libertarian" as a way to separate the articles.
When I was first read this article I was confused what they meant. But after I thought about it for awhile, it seems self-evident. Using a consumer example: A 1920x1080 HD-DVD is going to look better than a 720x480 SD-DVD with 1920x1080 upscaling algorithm applied to it. That's fairly self-evident.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's to say that your Downloads are any more important than the Hentai downloads?
In a society where all our treated equally under the law, such a distinction cannot be made.
The Free Expression of Thought is never useless. Just because you think "classic video games of the 70s" is a waste of space does not mean the owner, or his visitors, think it's a waste. Don't be elitist. Support egalitarianism (where all people have a right to pursue their own hobbies, and share their thoughts with the world). Don't sit there and say what is or is not "acceptable speech". It is ALL acceptable because we ALL have an inalienable right to speak our minds freely.
CANADA:
What will likely happen is that Rogers (the consumer) will located a new ISP provider that will not throttle their bandwidth and then say, "Goodbye Bell". That's how the free market works.
We vote with our dollars.
>>>"Anyone with two working neurons KNOWS that cables are "just there" and cost ZERO beyond basic maintenance."
Anyone with two neurons also realizes that (1) you need manpower to replace the cables operating if they break, or to control traffic flow, or to replace burnt-out servers, or to replace air conditioning units in central buildings, or whatever contingency arises. And (2) since cables are finite, bandwidth is finite, therefore it's necessary to lay MORE cables to handle the ever-growing size of internet downloads (in 1990: just a few bytes of text... in 2008: terabytes of video).
As file sizes have grown steadily larger, so too has the need to lay more cables.
That costs money. (As does the manpower required.)
>>>"the fact that DRM makes something like this necessary is truly infuriating."
Yes it is.
I think I'll just buying music. That will be the ultimate outcome if music companies keep insisting upon making music a CHORE instead of a pleasure. People will just quit.
Fortunately there's still ~1500 years of public domain music out there (monk chants, baroque, classical, romantic) that I can download and hear for free. I don't need to buy their modern "pop" music if they insist upon treating me like a thief & making things difficult.
First off, "free healthcare" is not a right. YES, you have a right to go to a doctor and say, "Please heal me," but you do NOT have a right to raid your neighbors' wallets, steal their money, and make them pay for your new heart. (Anymore than you can raid their wallets and force them to buy you a new Lexus.) On the contrary, that's a violation of your neighbors' right to property & theft of their labor.
- You have a right to healhcare.
- You don't have a right to violate your neighbors' rights.
- You don't have a right to steal their labor for your own benefit (which is what the Cotton Plantation Masters used to do).
.
Second, the flow of power is like so:
The People (the ultimate authority from which all power derives)
|
\/
The States (bound by their respective contracts between the People & the government)
|
\/
Constitutional Convention (states' representatives)
|
\/
Federal Constitution (the contract which the national gov't & states are bound to follow)
Although the Federal Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" that law derives its power from the consent of the governed (the States Legislatures and the People), and can be changed via amendment or constitutional convention by the Constitution's contractual parties.
My view of government is described in the American Declaration of Independence.
- The People are the ultimate authority.
- The government only exists because the People created it.
- It is granted SOME power by the People to protect human rights (unified defense, for example).
- All other powers not granted to the government by the Constitutional contract, is reserved to the People.
That's my view of government, and it is supplemented by Thomas Jefferson's writings. For example he wrote, "If it were possible to have no government at all, we would do it. It is only to secure our rights that we resort to any government at all." James Madison made a similar comment, "If men were angels, we would not need government."
So the job of government is to be a servant to its master (the People) and protect individual rights.
And nothing else.
i.e. The government's job is Not to raid my neighbors' wallets, take their money, and give it to me so I can buy a house. That is Not the job or purpose for which the People created the government. On the contrary, such an action violates my neighbors' rights of property and labor.
I thought Barak wanted the *corporation* to pay the healthcare bill, not the citizens.
I would describe that as middle-of-the-road solution, because the People are still free to take the corporate-provided insurance (or not), and so freedom is still preserved.
You keep trying to apply an European model to an American system. That does not work, because we have different traditions.
In America left == liberal and right == conservative. Left == larger government (to provide programs for the poor) and right == less government (to give people more freedom). Left == Democrat and right == Republican. That's just how it works here, and our system is completely different from your European system.
Another card people like to use is the Child Card which is still very effective.
"We need to require all cars have Tire Pressure monitors. It will help save children's lives."
"We need to ban all guns. It will save children's lives." (never mind that guns also kill criminals & protect)
"We must appropriate $1 trillion dollars for food stamps. It's for the children."
Oftentimes, the best thing to help children is to stop the gov't from interfering with parents' decisions. i.e. Butt out & let parents do their job.
Since the sun does not have air (all substances are torn-apart and exist only as plasma), there would be no sound. If you tried to dip a microphone into the sun and record it, you'd just have a vaporized microphone.
;-)
Tsunami?
Is that American for "tornado"?
Like I care about that EULA. I've been "illegally" using software since my first Commodore 64 and some games I downloaded off a BBS. I'm not putting some stupid sticker on my IBM-compatible just to make Apple jolly. I'll buy and use Safari whenever I feel like it, even though I am not using Apple hardware.
GREED.
That's the core issue here. The corporations like Apple/Microsoft want to make users pay again-and-again-and-again for the same software, but when it comes time for THEM to pay up (Indian taxes) then suddenly they don't want to. They don't want to pay.
Hypocrites. If we users have to "pay up" for the privilege of using Windoze, then so too should you pay-up Mr. Microsoft for the privilege of access to the Indian market. Stop trying to be like a thief in the night & skirting around the law. The users paid; now it's your turn to pay Microsoft.
Copyright law should be rewritten so it's "per user". In other words you pay for a song once, and that's it. If you want to move your CD over to an MP3 file, you can, as long as you keep the original CD as "proof of purchase". (And if you don't have the original, then you can be prosecuted.)
It's ridiculous that I have to buy the same song multiple times (first cassette, then CD, now Itunes download) just because I switch formats.
Either that or "greed" on the part of money-hungry companies desiring to sell the same song again-and-again-and-again.
Better solution:
Don't eat cholesterol. Then you won't have to worry about it damaging your brain. (Just a thought; I'm not a doctor.)
I wonder how caffeine is supposed to reduce Alzheimer's disease? My dad drank a cup of coffee every day, but it doesn't seem to stop him from forgetting everything.
>>>"The point of advertising is to get me to want something I don't need (because if I needed it, I could not wait around for an advertiser to "educate me about his valuable product/service"). That is, by definition, a waste of my time."
When I read comments like these, I find them incomprehensible. You see, I don't see ads. Literally. My brain focuses on the task at hand, and ignores any ads that may be flashing at the top of the screen. For example I was just visiting youtube, and I know there was an ad there, but I have absolutely no idea what it was about. It didn't even register.
So ads do Not waste my time.
I don't even see them.
Doesn't bother me at all, and I'd rather have the advertisers providing free service, then to have to pay the actual cost of my favorite television dramas (~$2000 a year) or websites. Free is better than paying.
"Kill them with kindness" is the approach we're using with China. I'm not convinced it's working. While they have developed a free market, China is still an authoritarian state. And they are becoming strong economically... pretty soon they'll use that strength to buy weapons, and possibly be a threat to America and Europe (both militarily and as an economic powerhouse). China right now looks like Germany or Japan in the 1930s, minus the crazed dictator. China is strong.
IMHO the approach we used with Russia was far more effective: Cut them off from trade until they go bankrupt, and then rebuild them as a Euro-style republic.
I think Cuba should follow the Russian approach.
Clearly I am talking to an idiot.
However there might be someone else who can gain knowledge, so I'll answer your question. The Niagara Dam took approximately 50 years to pay for the initial cost of building it (as is true with most major construction projects). Now that it's paid for, you might say all the electricity should be "free", but that's not true.
It still requires manpower to remove dirt away from the dam, so it does not get blocked. It requires manpower to adjust the flow of water to meet varying demands, and manpower to fix the machines if they break, or replace the high-tension wires that travel from Niagara to NYC if they fall down.
Manpower. Even if you don't pay these men wages (like slaves), they still have to be feed and clothed and sheltered. Food, clothes, shelter.
That is a Cost.
Not free.
Yes it's really the case that a cable company pays a "per subscriber" fee for every channel on the dial (except locals which are essentially free). For FX it's about 40 cents per home. For Disney Channel around 80 cents, and for ESPN it's over 2 dollars per subscriber.
What?
Did you think all those original cable shows like Stargate or Monk or the Shield just appear? Nope. They have commercials, but they also supplement the ad income by charging Per Subscriber fees to the cable company (who ultimately passes the charge onto you). That money supports the cost of producing new television.
Back to a la carte:
If Comcast currently has 1 million homes subscribed to FX, and the new a la carte program results in half those homes dropping FX, then Comcast only has to pay half as much money in subscriber fees. That's how the CATV business works. Cable channels take their "per subscriber" fee very seriously, and it's often a major sticking point during Channel-to-cable company negotiations (the channel wants more money; the cable doesn't want to pay more).
And that filters down to us.
Subscriber fees are the key reason why cable has increased from $30 to $60 during the last ten years.
On one hand I agree with you. It makes sense to design systems for non-peak usage, as a way to save natural resources. The hybrid cars work on that principle (tiny ~70hp engine designed for average power; supplemented by an electric motor during peak demand).
But then I imagine what I-95 would be like if designed for nonpeak usage. It would not be 4 lanes, but just 2, and the morning commute to work would take me two hours, instead of 30 minutes.
This is not a wise course to follow.
200 billion is not a lot. That's my company's annual expenditure, and it's just a small company located in a DC suburb..
You're talking about wiring-up an entire nation. And no replacing analog phone lines with digital lines is not a "small" bump... it's a major undertaking requiring years of work and manpower. The country was not wired-up with phones overnight (it took about 50 years), and upgrading all those lines to digital also takes time.
Same with DSL.
Same with laying cable tv to formerly unconnected rural communities.
I see your point about "natural monopoly". An obvious case where it applies is the Natural Gas lines feeding into my house, but even there I have a choice of who supplies the fuel. (Ditto with my electricity - I have choice.)
As for internet, well there's no monopoly of any kind. You've got:
- cable (comcast, cox, etc)
- telephone (Netscape, Frye's, Erols, etc)
- DSL (Netzero, Bell, etc)
- satellite (Dish or DirecTV and soon... XM/Sirius)
- wireless (Cingular, AT&T, Sprint, etc)
- optical fiber (Verizon)
You can't claim there's a natural monopoly, because that simply isn't true. Therefore there's no justification for the government to "take over" the lines. Let the market remain overseen by the FCC, but still privatized.
That's the first thing that popped into my head when I read your story about how your car was "crippled" because you bought new wheels without sensors. Dumb.
In fact the whole idea is dumb.
There's nothing difficult about keeping your tires pressurized. And even if the tire does go flat, so what? I had 3 flats in the last year (old tires that literally fell apart), and it was no big deal. I just pulled-over and called AAA. Nothing dangerous about it.
I think this is a case of a government employee with nothing to do, so he escalated the idea to his bored boss, who called together a bunch of other people who had nothing to do, and to justify their existence on the payroll they came-up with this ridiculous idea.
Next I suppose they'll want to mandate "Wiper Sensors"
that can detect when you need new blades, and
force your car to slow to 40 if they are worn.
I'm tired of gov't treating me like I'm a child and/or idiot.
P.S. For example:
I'd label Hillary Clinton as "authoritarian" because she says, "You must buy health insurance. You have no choice; if you don't buy insurance, you will be jailed (or fined)." That mandatory requirement that all citizens buy insurance is an authoritarian viewpoint, where citizens must follow the will of President Hillary (and/or the Congress) as if she were king.
I'd label Ron Paul as "libertarian" because he wants doctors to serve patients, and patients to "pay as they go" when they receive the bill. He also wants doctors to provide volunteer hours (free service) to those who are poor or needy. ----- He does Not want government to interfere in the doctor-patient interaction in any manner whatsoever, except in the case of malpractice lawsuits (the courts).
I'm not sure where Barak Obama or John McCain would land.
Maybe in the middle.
>>>So neocons who have striven to extend the power of the federal government are leftists?"
;-) Yes neocons are leftists. They are not for the goals of smaller government, even though they pretend they are.
By Jove I thing 'e's go'it!
I don't think we've had a true "less power to government; more power to the people" president since the 1800s.
>>>Left: Looking after society from the bottom up.
>>>Right: Looking after society from the top down.
I don't know how you can label the Leftist view of letting the government run everything (healthcare, housing, food) as a bottom-up approach. That sounds like a top-down approach to me (where the top mandates how citizens are supposed to live).
Personally I prefer "authoritarian" versus "libertarian" as a way to separate the articles.
Maybe I'll create my own website.
When I was first read this article I was confused what they meant. But after I thought about it for awhile, it seems self-evident. Using a consumer example: A 1920x1080 HD-DVD is going to look better than a 720x480 SD-DVD with 1920x1080 upscaling algorithm applied to it. That's fairly self-evident.
More data will produce better results.