="Of course I'm being facetious, but the fact that you don't have many people in your neighborhood that care, doesn't count for much."=
We dont have nearly a majority of people here in Cal who care either, you pretentious asshole.
People here are still sane enough that, given a limited budget and the choice between braces for Sally or paying the haz-mat disposal fees, people will make the rational choice and buy Sally her braces and bury the haz-mat shit out in a field (preferably on govt property). Thankfully, pretentious yuppies are just a loudmouth minority here like their redneck religous freak cousins are in the US in general.
focused attention from enough people into a fictitious world and set of characters, you breathe life into that world, into those people.
No, you have a cult of morons.
The reality we populate today is a collective dream. You walk away from the lamp post, and it stays the same when you come back.
Walk backwards into the lamp post, and it hurts. Even if youve never seen it before.
Oh, and there is no collective. Or should I say, no evidence of such a thing as a 'collective dream' or consciousness.
Anybody who derides the study of the stories we tell ourselves is missing the meta game by a zillion miles.
Anyone who thinks truth can be arrived at by studying made-up shit, no matter how old, is an idiot. Myths are just early attempts to answer questions. In the absence of the modern scientific method, effectively that means that myths are, well, made up bullshit. Not saying anything bad about those who made them up; they were just trying to answer questions. I am saying something bad about those who still revere myths, or who think that any real truths (beyond our obvious need to have an explanation for everything) can be garnered from them.
I have the utmost respect for myth...in an illitarate, pre-industrial society. I have the utmost respect for myth...when those are the only answers a peoples level of technology enables them to develop.
I have no respect for those who cling to myth or try to idealize it when far better ways of answering questions exist. Truth is not about what we would like to believe.
We are biological organisms. That means we do not expend more energy than we derive from the expense. No one works for free. Everyone working expects to profit.
Like others, Im not sure where you get the idea that open source means some kind of communal model. In all open source projects there are those who contribute more and thus have more say/control.
If you gaurentee that everyone will contribute the exact same amount, that everyone will have the exact same ability, then Ill gaurentee that everyone will have the exact same amount of control.
Even in the co-ops or employee owned companies or Quakers mentioned in many posts, there is a hierarchy. Im a big fan of decentralization, since there is no such thing as an adult human who knows whats best for another; but this complete-equal-say stuff is just so much juvenille utopianism.
And no, people dont work and slave at their jobs so investors make a profit; people work and slave at their jobs for their own profit. Of course you realize that any money you have left over after paying for the necessities of living to work another day is profit, right? You do realize that workers exploit the needs of a company just as much as companies exploit the needs of workers, right? You do realize that human behavior isnt motivated by morality or culture but by biology, right?
One has to wonder if these are coding/language bugs or logical bugs. Finding coding bugs is of course a valuable time saver, but the challenging and usually most costly bugs are of the logical sort, and invariably app specific.
Talk to someone in Colorado about why you have such cheap water; talk to the rest of the people in Cal as to why its so cheap (hint..youre not paying the full cost of your water usage. Others are being forced to pay for it for you).
If shifting the cost from you (for your water use) to someone else is your idea of efficient, then yes its very efficient.
By the way, can you provide an example of a privately run water system (not a govt granted monopoly), meaning there are multiple water companies that consumers have to choose from? Can you contrast that to the city run system? If not, then what exactly is your basis for claiming that 'there are some things the private sector doesnt do better?'
If the city run systems are so good and great, why all the bottled water companies?
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with captalism or free markets. As you point out in your post:
"Earthlink has been granted a monopoly on city property and exemptions from certain regulations to build a citywide WiFi network"
How is the granting of a monopoly by a govt agency 'capitalism'?
And from the article:
"..One allows subscribers to pay about $20 per month for a 1Mbps connection from EarthLink or another Internet service provider leasing capacity on the Wi-Fi network."
It sounds to me like the city is going to force all of its citizens to have to use the Earthlink network even if theyre buying their access from a different provider.
Theres nothing free market (and thus capitalistic) about this scam.
And your 'basic math' calculations fail to take into account that if the city paid for it, they would have to pay union wages even if its done by non-union workers; so the cost would be far far greater than $20 per household. And thats just to ~build~ it; one can only imagine the cost and incompetence of unionized city workers maintaining it and (shudder) maintaining it -
"What? Your connection went down? Im on my break, youll have to call the other number...ya'know, the other number they gave you to call...Look lady, Im on my break, its not my job to route your calls its only my job to fix your service, but Im on my break...I dont care if you work for a hospital, thats not my problem, Ive allready told you, Im on my break, you have to call between the hours of 9am and 12pm, and 1pm to 5pm or no one can help you...youll have to take that up with the city." Click.
In case you arent aware, San Francisco is historically second only to Chicago in its rigged and corrupt political machine. Its run very much along fuedal lines...why does the city even think it has some basis for 'allowing' Google or any other company to offer a service to the people who live here? All any govts role in such a transation is to make sure all promises and/or contracts are met. Othewise, its between Google, Earthlink and the individual people in the city.
This is all about running a scam. No economic activity is allowed to take place in the city unless the city govt gets a huge cut. Until only a few years ago Safeway was the only grocery store 'allowed' to open stores in the city. Until only a few years ago BofA had an exclusive contract with the city.
Theres nothing free market (ad thus capitalistic) about San Francisco, unless one is member of the city govt or a local union; then the free market is on everyone elses wallets.
I would love nothing better than to see the bank accts of the current city admin's now, and compare them to the amounts in their accts a couple of months after this scam takes place.
Its why, almost everywhere you walk in the city, it smells like piss.
IQ testing is a surprisingly accurate predictor of future status
and rephrase it as
"IQ testing is an accurate predictor of ones future ability to succeed in a wide(r) variety of fields"
I have no problem with IQ/intelligence being rooted in biology/genetics. Environment can be an inhibitor or a mutator, but not a creator of that which isnt there.
What bothers me is the seeming perception on the part of some to view an IQ as some sort of measurement of capacity (this isnt directed at your post specifically Neal, more the thread in general). The test is timed. There is a time limit. An IQ is not a measurement of capacity. An IQ is a measurement of rate.
If hypothetically we could measure a kids leg bones and leg muscle mass and say "Hes going to be a fast runner some day", the kid may very well grow up to win every race he runs. But that doesnt mean other people dont reach the finish line.
It just seems like so many people see an IQ like, "Well this person can hold x amount of intelligence while this person can only hold y amount". Its silly. Its nuts. Someone with an IQ of 110 can learn calculus, its just going to take them longer than someone with an IQ of 140. Since we know its biological, we know its not lack of ability, but lack of predisposition.
In todays US congress, the district lines are drawn so 90% of districts are guaranteed for one party. Within these heavily polarized districts, you often win by being more extremely right/left than your competion. And the result is a congress with two huge extremist blocks, and very few moderates.
What it is an example of is political parties manipulating things for their own benefit. Adding more political parties and increasing the power of political parties in general would change this how?
Gerrymandering is a problem that simply doesn't exist in a proportional system.
Proportional representation is gerrymandering, so how could it be illegal in a prop rep system? Its re-arranging things so people are represented by ideology.
Look, europeans and american devide ourselves in different ways as to how we are represented. In the US, it is by geographic regions. In europe, it is apparently by ideology.
We in the US vote and our representatives authority is based on a geographic political district, not the prevalence of a candidates particular ideology. If we have a problem with our representatives voting based more on the instructions of their party than their actual consituents in their district (and I think we do), then that is what we need to fix.
You dont represent your political party in the US - you represent the people who live in your district. And we need to get back to enforcing that, in my opinion.
Groups that endorse prop rep in the US - its like theyre saying 'Our candidates are going to vote based on how party instructs them, so we should change things so representation is based on party memebership'.
Screw that. We need LESS party politics in the US, not more. Prop rep just cements party politics into the system. It forces people to divide themselves by ideology, rather than come together for those things they have in commmon.
An omniscient man said 'No' to Walmart today. When asked where the local poor people should then go to buy bread, Mr. Omniscient replied that they should eat cake instead; that eating cheap bread was socially irresponsible and causing children in Africa to starve to death.
"Look, I have a degree!" shouted Mr. Omniscient in frustation "so of course I know whats best for you, you fat selfish FOX News watching neo-cons! You should be buying cakse from Patisserie De Snoob, its much more healthy tasty and isnt so low priced as to hurt our local economy. Low prices are bad for everyone. Why do I even try? None of YOU have a degree in gender studies!"
Since saying No to Walmart, Mr. Omniscient's brother in law Mr. I.M Pretentious, owner of Patisserie De Snoob Bakery, reported sales went up a staggering 1.5% in 6 months.
"At this rate, in another year Ill be able to hire an employee and pay them a socially responsible wage of $15 per hour. Much more than they would have gotten at Walmart."
Let's say you want to buy a BMW. So you go to the dealership. Now who are you more likely to trust as a knowledgeable salesperson? A woman in a nice suit, or a women in a old jogging uniform?
Thats easy. The woman who is ~not~ in the suit. The woman in the suit is lying to me before shes even opened her mouth. She has put on a facade that, based upon contemporary social bigotry, is calculated to give a particular impression. This is insulting to my intelligence, as if I were stupid enough to draw some correlation between how she is dressed and the quality of the product she is selling. If the quality of the product is without question, then why the need for the whole act? What is it she is hiding? How can you trust someone who so obviously goes out of their way to put on a false facade? Either she has a problem with self esteem and so feels she cannot be herself, or shes trying to dupe me in some way. Either way, how on earth can you trust a person like that?
The woman in the jogging uniform on the other hand, obviously has enough confidence in the quality of the product she is selling that she doesnt need to lie with her appearance. I can trust her, because she is saying 'this is me, warts and all, take it or leave it'; she is the only one of the two being honest before shes even opened her mouth. Obviously the product quality is such that she doesnt need to dress up, she doesnt need to lie; all she needs to do is to be there to facilitate the transaction. This might indicate to me there must be something special about the quality of the product.
I mean, after all, that ~is~ the purpose of being there, right? To buy a product? Or is it to have your ass kissed (which would thus be insulting due to the insinuation that you were the type of dirtbag who expected people to kiss your ass)?
But then, I wouldnt buy a BMW any more than I would fly first class on an airline. Both are overpriced and are very good examples of pretentious people having their pretentions used against them by those of us willing to exploit pretentious people for our own gain.;)
Lets rephrase your question:
"Let's say you want to buy a book. So you go to the bookstore. Now what are you more likely to consider as a good book? A book with a nice cover, or a book with an old ripped cover?"
The article is just one idiots subjective opinion. This is what happens when management is responsible for technical purchase decisions - the decisions are based on any number of superficial criteria (i.e political).
Its not all that accurate though; in my experience, open source software is usually considered right along side commercial software; if its adopted, its because it does something better; if not, its because the commercial software does something better. Whether its open source or not doesnt end up influencing anything unless theres a good probability the code may need to be tweaked in the future. Most all places Ive worked use a mix of both. The exceptions have been just that: exceptions.
The article is somewhat interesting from a cultural perspective, though. It seems that the behavior normally exhibited by groups of 13 year old girls in malls is now being seen as 'mature'. If it really is seen as rational to make purchasing/business decisions based on nothing more substantial than social bigotry, then its a good time to become a used car salesman - the patsies are lining up at the door. After all, pretentious self important people exist for others to use and exploit. The single largest reason to not let your ego get out of control is that it becomes a weapon others can and will use against you.
'How dare you come in here with that long hair and those jeans and try to sell me that pneumatic hammer gun? This standard hand-held hammer works just fine; you seriously expect me to pay attention to someone who couldnt even dress decently to show me his product?'
'Ok dumbshit, never mind. Scuse me, I gotta jet; Ive got a meeting with your competition.'
If your point is that a govt - any govt - is really just a social model in microcosm, much like some sort of sample grouping for stats analysis. Are you saying that govt is similar to putting a number of people (statistically representative of others) in an arena, we watch them have their soap operas, and we must adopt the solutions that group arrives at for similar problems in the real world? Im sorry but thats just plain silly.
Its completely irrelevent what the system models; we arent an audience on the sidelines watching this play, and we arent under any obligation to adopt the roles or choices of the actors. They arent there to represent us as statistical models; they are there to represent us as in "Follow our instructions, or lose your job".
The FEC decision is of course a good one, though symtomatic of a rediculous state of affairs.
As one person pointed out, as long as congressmen wield the authority they wield, they will be a valuable commodity. As we know, once you try to restrict or illegalize a commodity, all you do is create a black market in that commodity. This is why politicos (and corporations) are against things like the flat tax (and fair tax, etc); it takes away ones value as a commodity and the others ability to have legislation created which undermines its rivals. As long as congressmen have the ability to 'fine tune' tax rates/incentives, congressmen will be a commodity for sale, whether for sale in the open or behind closed doors.
As to the larger issue of campaign finance reform, much of this is caused by politicians in a non-proportional rep system behaving as if they were in, well, a proportional rep system. Politicians in the US are not, strictly speaking, there to represent their party; they are there representing people who live within a fixed geographic area. If some politicians ignore the instructions of their consituents and instead vote as their party wishes, then ~this~ practice needs to be addressed and rectified (by a stay in a penitentiary in my opinion). This voting-along-party-lines BS is why so many are disenfranchised; politicos have forgotten who their employers are. Organized political parties are part of the problem, not the solution. I would much rather see factions of mutual interest, which in the US would result in regional alliances most of all, probably.
As for publicly funded financing, yeah right; the parties dont have enough money. If a political party has problems getting money, that reflects peoples support for that party. The Greens and Libertarians dont have much money ~because~ they dont have much support. The Dems and Repubs have money ~because~ they have support. As the support for a party wanes, so does its ability to raise funds - this is a Good Thing. It forces parties to adopt policies/platforms that people want, or they dissappear and make room for parties that ~do~ reflect what people want. All this BS about public funding is being spouted by parties who are convinced they shouldnt have to deal with the fickle support of the people; they are convinced they are right and should be in office/have a loud voice anyway regardless of their level of public support (i.e the US Greens). If the Greens have a hard time collecting money, then maybe they should pull their heads out of their asses and start listening and representing rather than lecturing and dictating. They are one of many small parties who dont have a lot of money ~for a reason~, and that reason is they dont have much support.
Public political party/candidate 'pools' are just a way for parties to get around the nasty dirty little detail of actually building support.
If someones stated reasons for wanting something dont make sense, then perhaps their stated reasons are not true or are incomplete, thus indicating the probable existance of ulterior reasons.
Basically, while on the surface this seems to be about root servers and protocols, thats ultimately not what its about. Im not sure why thats the only thing people focus on; yes, even people on/. seem to be human and let the media drive the debate.
but the concept of "civil disobedience" as a political tool and means for change depends on the visibility and public nature of the disobedience.
The problem with that is that it establishes the false dictum that a law is 'bad' or not merely depending on the number of people who protest it.
If 100 people stand around chanting songs protesting a law, they can safely be ignored, but if 1,000,000 people stand and chant protesting the same law, they cant be? At what random number in between 100 and 1,000,000 did it go from a good law to a bad law?
If its a bad law, its a bad law, regardless of how many people visibly protest, whether its one or one million. By simply ignoring the law and behaving as one would anyway, the law will not have the desired affect and it will be shown to be the bad law it is.
Youre describing just so much adolescent posturing; just as stupid as martydom. You wish to empirically demonstrate to whatever govt that they chose the correct strategy to flush out the ones they seek. Youre just saving them money on having to go out and find you. How noble.
Yes, stand up, paint a target on your back; go to prison. Boy, youll sure show them huh? Thatll teach the govt....how dare they pass unjust laws. Yeah, teach them a lesson and rot in prison; they sure wont do that again. Im sure your family will be able to pay the bills while youre in jail with the noble feeling they get knowing you were In The Right; Im sure your kids wont mind being hungry cause Dads a Noble Fellow.
Ive read Thoreau, but I fail to see how the definition of a term as it was 150 odd years ago has anything to do with how a term is defined now. Words do not have static unshifting meaning, they change with time. Thats why we have dictionaries for words but not for numbers.
Uh, the Million Man March had nothing to do with civil disobedience....what are you talking about?
Civil disobedience in this case just means smuggling. Just as smoking a joint when its against the law is civil disobedience, downloading from file shares when its against the law is civil disobedience. When it comes to file sharing, there is allready civil disobedience by far more than just a million people.
Civil disobedience is just ignoring a law as if it doesnt exist. Sure, you can hold hands in a crowd in front of the white house and yell at the top of your lungs that you arent going to obey a law; that is civil disobedience too, its just stupid civil disobedience.
Go ahead and reveal yourself to those who want to imprison you, make it easy for them...me, Ill just sit here and dowload music while smoking a joint.
12. It should be made clear, however, that Internet governance includes more than Internet names and addresses, issues dealt with by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN): it also includes other significant public policy issues, such as critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet.
The really rediculous quote from the paper though is:
Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
Whats this in their respective roles crap? Who is it thats going to define what ones 'respective role' is? Why should we accept some UN idiots labeling of different groups? What the hell is the difference between the private sector and civil society? If govt supposedly reflects the values of a society, what is the difference between governments and civil society? What moron wrote this rag?
Most of the taxes were tariffs on imported goods and the rest were on sales of luxury items like tobacco and booze. Pretty much opposite of the "free trade" advocates.
Well yes, and we also were on the gold standard. Big huge gaping fundamental difference there between then and now.
Mercantilism is the economic theory that a nation's prosperity depends upon its supply of capital and that the global volume of trade is unchangeable. The amount of capital, represented by bullion (amount of precious metal held by the state), is best increased through a balance of trade with large exports and low imports.
The battle between mercantilists and capitalists was one of the first big debates of the early US. Its pretty moot now since much of the logic espoused by you (and mercantilists), is based on there being a gold standard (one finite amount of wealth). Luckily, our currency is no longer backed by a finite natural resource. Its backed by human labor. The more people working whether manufacturing or providing services, the more money can be printed without lessening the value of the pool of money.
You are thinking in terms of a system where the amount of money in circulation (and thus its value) has little to do with the amount of goods and services produced; you are thinking in terms of the amount of money printed (and thus its value) is dependant on our acquiring/retaining more of the finite resource it is backed by.
If we were still on the gold standard, or our currency was backed by some other finite natural resource, your post would make more sense.
In a village full of lazy fat people who all own widgets, the man carrying people accross the street on his back is creating more value (wealth) than the man who makes widgets.
So, about 110 years until we had even a basic income tax.
Sure. Most challenges to income tax derive from the argument that it is a direct tax rather than an indirect tax. But the definition of direct taxation was given in 1796 - direct taxes are a tax on owned wealth (in 1796, land and slaves). All modern property taxes are direct taxes. Indirect taxes are a tax on commerce, and when you trade your labor for money/goods/servies, you are engaging in comerce.
If you own an apartment building, the property tax you pay on the market value of the land/building is a direct tax, while the tax you pay on the income ~derived~ from your property (the profit made) is an indirect tax, and subject to excise taxes.
Even though we havent always had an income tax, it has been repeatedly found that congress has always had the authority to levy one.
The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this narrow view of "Capitation, or other direct, Tax," when it decided the case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Four separate opinions were written by the justices who heard the case (separate opinions were the common practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).
Also:
The question of whether an individual income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
Although they are correct in stating the Court's finding that the Sixteenth Amendment gave "no new power to tax," this is not because the amendment was ineffective. Instead, the Court merely found that Congress always had the power to tax incomes, and that the amendment only affects the way that such taxes must be apportioned.
While I dont completely agree with the line of reasoning of the GP, I do think he has a point in that in the abstract this does touch on the EU and UN wanting control of the root servers.
Americans are used to being free to do something unless there is a law prohibiting it, while the vast majority in the rest of the world are used to being free to do something once a law has been passed allowing it.
Our constitution is a document which defines the limitations of the authority of govt without enumerating rights, while the UN Declaration on Human Rights and most other constitutions pretty much just enumerate rights and dont really address the limitations of govt authority.
Its like the difference between setting your firewall to allow all, then constantly updating the list of IPs you wont allow vs. setting it to deny all and selectively adding to a list of trusted IPs (the firewall in this case being an individual, the IPs being limitations on individual rights).
So yes, in the abstract, its issues like this that are ~exactly~ the reason why the thought of turning control over to the UN and/or EU is stomach turning.
Slashdot Mirror
Remind me again who in their right mind cares whether its illegal when they decide whether or not to use it?
="Of course I'm being facetious, but the fact that you don't have many people in your neighborhood that care, doesn't count for much."=
We dont have nearly a majority of people here in Cal who care either, you pretentious asshole.
People here are still sane enough that, given a limited budget and the choice between braces for Sally or paying the haz-mat disposal fees, people will make the rational choice and buy Sally her braces and bury the haz-mat shit out in a field (preferably on govt property). Thankfully, pretentious yuppies are just a loudmouth minority here like their redneck religous freak cousins are in the US in general.
focused attention from enough people into a fictitious world and set of characters, you breathe life into that world, into those people.
No, you have a cult of morons.
The reality we populate today is a collective dream. You walk away from the lamp post, and it stays the same when you come back.
Walk backwards into the lamp post, and it hurts. Even if youve never seen it before.
Oh, and there is no collective. Or should I say, no evidence of such a thing as a 'collective dream' or consciousness.
Anybody who derides the study of the stories we tell ourselves is missing the meta game by a zillion miles.
Anyone who thinks truth can be arrived at by studying made-up shit, no matter how old, is an idiot. Myths are just early attempts to answer questions. In the absence of the modern scientific method, effectively that means that myths are, well, made up bullshit. Not saying anything bad about those who made them up; they were just trying to answer questions. I am saying something bad about those who still revere myths, or who think that any real truths (beyond our obvious need to have an explanation for everything) can be garnered from them.
I have the utmost respect for myth...in an illitarate, pre-industrial society. I have the utmost respect for myth...when those are the only answers a peoples level of technology enables them to develop.
I have no respect for those who cling to myth or try to idealize it when far better ways of answering questions exist. Truth is not about what we would like to believe.
We are biological organisms. That means we do not expend more energy than we derive from the expense. No one works for free. Everyone working expects to profit.
Like others, Im not sure where you get the idea that open source means some kind of communal model. In all open source projects there are those who contribute more and thus have more say/control.
If you gaurentee that everyone will contribute the exact same amount, that everyone will have the exact same ability, then Ill gaurentee that everyone will have the exact same amount of control.
Even in the co-ops or employee owned companies or Quakers mentioned in many posts, there is a hierarchy. Im a big fan of decentralization, since there is no such thing as an adult human who knows whats best for another; but this complete-equal-say stuff is just so much juvenille utopianism.
And no, people dont work and slave at their jobs so investors make a profit; people work and slave at their jobs for their own profit. Of course you realize that any money you have left over after paying for the necessities of living to work another day is profit, right? You do realize that workers exploit the needs of a company just as much as companies exploit the needs of workers, right? You do realize that human behavior isnt motivated by morality or culture but by biology, right?
One has to wonder if these are coding/language bugs or logical bugs. Finding coding bugs is of course a valuable time saver, but the challenging and usually most costly bugs are of the logical sort, and invariably app specific.
Talk to someone in Colorado about why you have such cheap water; talk to the rest of the people in Cal as to why its so cheap (hint..youre not paying the full cost of your water usage. Others are being forced to pay for it for you).
If shifting the cost from you (for your water use) to someone else is your idea of efficient, then yes its very efficient.
By the way, can you provide an example of a privately run water system (not a govt granted monopoly), meaning there are multiple water companies that consumers have to choose from? Can you contrast that to the city run system? If not, then what exactly is your basis for claiming that 'there are some things the private sector doesnt do better?'
If the city run systems are so good and great, why all the bottled water companies?
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with captalism or free markets. As you point out in your post:
"Earthlink has been granted a monopoly on city property and exemptions from certain regulations to build a citywide WiFi network"
How is the granting of a monopoly by a govt agency 'capitalism'?
And from the article:
"..One allows subscribers to pay about $20 per month for a 1Mbps connection from EarthLink or another Internet service provider leasing capacity on the Wi-Fi network."
It sounds to me like the city is going to force all of its citizens to have to use the Earthlink network even if theyre buying their access from a different provider.
Theres nothing free market (and thus capitalistic) about this scam.
And your 'basic math' calculations fail to take into account that if the city paid for it, they would have to pay union wages even if its done by non-union workers; so the cost would be far far greater than $20 per household. And thats just to ~build~ it; one can only imagine the cost and incompetence of unionized city workers maintaining it and (shudder) maintaining it -
"What? Your connection went down? Im on my break, youll have to call the other number...ya'know, the other number they gave you to call...Look lady, Im on my break, its not my job to route your calls its only my job to fix your service, but Im on my break...I dont care if you work for a hospital, thats not my problem, Ive allready told you, Im on my break, you have to call between the hours of 9am and 12pm, and 1pm to 5pm or no one can help you...youll have to take that up with the city." Click.
In case you arent aware, San Francisco is historically second only to Chicago in its rigged and corrupt political machine. Its run very much along fuedal lines...why does the city even think it has some basis for 'allowing' Google or any other company to offer a service to the people who live here? All any govts role in such a transation is to make sure all promises and/or contracts are met. Othewise, its between Google, Earthlink and the individual people in the city.
This is all about running a scam. No economic activity is allowed to take place in the city unless the city govt gets a huge cut. Until only a few years ago Safeway was the only grocery store 'allowed' to open stores in the city. Until only a few years ago BofA had an exclusive contract with the city.
Theres nothing free market (ad thus capitalistic) about San Francisco, unless one is member of the city govt or a local union; then the free market is on everyone elses wallets.
I would love nothing better than to see the bank accts of the current city admin's now, and compare them to the amounts in their accts a couple of months after this scam takes place.
Its why, almost everywhere you walk in the city, it smells like piss.
Thats pretty unusual, considering this admin is all about creating/reinforcing monopolies.
The idea is to get ~rid~ of monopolies, and govts power to create/protect them, not use govt to create ~more~ monopolies.
Yes, there are drawbacks to living in rural areas. Those drawbacks are often what attract people to living in rural areas in the first place.
I would just disagree with:
IQ testing is a surprisingly accurate predictor of future status
and rephrase it as
"IQ testing is an accurate predictor of ones future ability to succeed in a wide(r) variety of fields"
I have no problem with IQ/intelligence being rooted in biology/genetics. Environment can be an inhibitor or a mutator, but not a creator of that which isnt there.
What bothers me is the seeming perception on the part of some to view an IQ as some sort of measurement of capacity (this isnt directed at your post specifically Neal, more the thread in general). The test is timed. There is a time limit. An IQ is not a measurement of capacity. An IQ is a measurement of rate.
If hypothetically we could measure a kids leg bones and leg muscle mass and say "Hes going to be a fast runner some day", the kid may very well grow up to win every race he runs. But that doesnt mean other people dont reach the finish line.
It just seems like so many people see an IQ like, "Well this person can hold x amount of intelligence while this person can only hold y amount". Its silly. Its nuts. Someone with an IQ of 110 can learn calculus, its just going to take them longer than someone with an IQ of 140. Since we know its biological, we know its not lack of ability, but lack of predisposition.
In todays US congress, the district lines are drawn so 90% of districts are guaranteed for one party. Within these heavily polarized districts, you often win by being more extremely right/left than your competion. And the result is a congress with two huge extremist blocks, and very few moderates.
What it is an example of is political parties manipulating things for their own benefit. Adding more political parties and increasing the power of political parties in general would change this how?
Gerrymandering is a problem that simply doesn't exist in a proportional system.
Proportional representation is gerrymandering, so how could it be illegal in a prop rep system? Its re-arranging things so people are represented by ideology.
Look, europeans and american devide ourselves in different ways as to how we are represented. In the US, it is by geographic regions. In europe, it is apparently by ideology.
We in the US vote and our representatives authority is based on a geographic political district, not the prevalence of a candidates particular ideology. If we have a problem with our representatives voting based more on the instructions of their party than their actual consituents in their district (and I think we do), then that is what we need to fix.
You dont represent your political party in the US - you represent the people who live in your district. And we need to get back to enforcing that, in my opinion.
Groups that endorse prop rep in the US - its like theyre saying 'Our candidates are going to vote based on how party instructs them, so we should change things so representation is based on party memebership'.
Screw that. We need LESS party politics in the US, not more. Prop rep just cements party politics into the system. It forces people to divide themselves by ideology, rather than come together for those things they have in commmon.
An omniscient man said 'No' to Walmart today. When asked where the local poor people should then go to buy bread, Mr. Omniscient replied that they should eat cake instead; that eating cheap bread was socially irresponsible and causing children in Africa to starve to death.
"Look, I have a degree!" shouted Mr. Omniscient in frustation "so of course I know whats best for you, you fat selfish FOX News watching neo-cons! You should be buying cakse from Patisserie De Snoob, its much more healthy tasty and isnt so low priced as to hurt our local economy. Low prices are bad for everyone. Why do I even try? None of YOU have a degree in gender studies!"
Since saying No to Walmart, Mr. Omniscient's brother in law Mr. I.M Pretentious, owner of Patisserie De Snoob Bakery, reported sales went up a staggering 1.5% in 6 months.
"At this rate, in another year Ill be able to hire an employee and pay them a socially responsible wage of $15 per hour. Much more than they would have gotten at Walmart."
You said:
Let's say you want to buy a BMW. So you go to the dealership. Now who are you more likely to trust as a knowledgeable salesperson? A woman in a nice suit, or a women in a old jogging uniform?
Thats easy. The woman who is ~not~ in the suit. The woman in the suit is lying to me before shes even opened her mouth. She has put on a facade that, based upon contemporary social bigotry, is calculated to give a particular impression. This is insulting to my intelligence, as if I were stupid enough to draw some correlation between how she is dressed and the quality of the product she is selling. If the quality of the product is without question, then why the need for the whole act? What is it she is hiding? How can you trust someone who so obviously goes out of their way to put on a false facade? Either she has a problem with self esteem and so feels she cannot be herself, or shes trying to dupe me in some way. Either way, how on earth can you trust a person like that?
The woman in the jogging uniform on the other hand, obviously has enough confidence in the quality of the product she is selling that she doesnt need to lie with her appearance. I can trust her, because she is saying 'this is me, warts and all, take it or leave it'; she is the only one of the two being honest before shes even opened her mouth. Obviously the product quality is such that she doesnt need to dress up, she doesnt need to lie; all she needs to do is to be there to facilitate the transaction. This might indicate to me there must be something special about the quality of the product.
I mean, after all, that ~is~ the purpose of being there, right? To buy a product? Or is it to have your ass kissed (which would thus be insulting due to the insinuation that you were the type of dirtbag who expected people to kiss your ass)?
But then, I wouldnt buy a BMW any more than I would fly first class on an airline. Both are overpriced and are very good examples of pretentious people having their pretentions used against them by those of us willing to exploit pretentious people for our own gain.;)
Lets rephrase your question:
"Let's say you want to buy a book. So you go to the bookstore. Now what are you more likely to consider as a good book? A book with a nice cover, or a book with an old ripped cover?"
The article is just one idiots subjective opinion. This is what happens when management is responsible for technical purchase decisions - the decisions are based on any number of superficial criteria (i.e political).
Its not all that accurate though; in my experience, open source software is usually considered right along side commercial software; if its adopted, its because it does something better; if not, its because the commercial software does something better. Whether its open source or not doesnt end up influencing anything unless theres a good probability the code may need to be tweaked in the future. Most all places Ive worked use a mix of both. The exceptions have been just that: exceptions.
The article is somewhat interesting from a cultural perspective, though. It seems that the behavior normally exhibited by groups of 13 year old girls in malls is now being seen as 'mature'. If it really is seen as rational to make purchasing/business decisions based on nothing more substantial than social bigotry, then its a good time to become a used car salesman - the patsies are lining up at the door. After all, pretentious self important people exist for others to use and exploit. The single largest reason to not let your ego get out of control is that it becomes a weapon others can and will use against you.
'How dare you come in here with that long hair and those jeans and try to sell me that pneumatic hammer gun? This standard hand-held hammer works just fine; you seriously expect me to pay attention to someone who couldnt even dress decently to show me his product?'
'Ok dumbshit, never mind. Scuse me, I gotta jet; Ive got a meeting with your competition.'
If your point is that a govt - any govt - is really just a social model in microcosm, much like some sort of sample grouping for stats analysis. Are you saying that govt is similar to putting a number of people (statistically representative of others) in an arena, we watch them have their soap operas, and we must adopt the solutions that group arrives at for similar problems in the real world? Im sorry but thats just plain silly.
Its completely irrelevent what the system models; we arent an audience on the sidelines watching this play, and we arent under any obligation to adopt the roles or choices of the actors. They arent there to represent us as statistical models; they are there to represent us as in "Follow our instructions, or lose your job".
The FEC decision is of course a good one, though symtomatic of a rediculous state of affairs.
As one person pointed out, as long as congressmen wield the authority they wield, they will be a valuable commodity. As we know, once you try to restrict or illegalize a commodity, all you do is create a black market in that commodity. This is why politicos (and corporations) are against things like the flat tax (and fair tax, etc); it takes away ones value as a commodity and the others ability to have legislation created which undermines its rivals. As long as congressmen have the ability to 'fine tune' tax rates/incentives, congressmen will be a commodity for sale, whether for sale in the open or behind closed doors.
As to the larger issue of campaign finance reform, much of this is caused by politicians in a non-proportional rep system behaving as if they were in, well, a proportional rep system. Politicians in the US are not, strictly speaking, there to represent their party; they are there representing people who live within a fixed geographic area. If some politicians ignore the instructions of their consituents and instead vote as their party wishes, then ~this~ practice needs to be addressed and rectified (by a stay in a penitentiary in my opinion). This voting-along-party-lines BS is why so many are disenfranchised; politicos have forgotten who their employers are. Organized political parties are part of the problem, not the solution. I would much rather see factions of mutual interest, which in the US would result in regional alliances most of all, probably.
As for publicly funded financing, yeah right; the parties dont have enough money. If a political party has problems getting money, that reflects peoples support for that party. The Greens and Libertarians dont have much money ~because~ they dont have much support. The Dems and Repubs have money ~because~ they have support. As the support for a party wanes, so does its ability to raise funds - this is a Good Thing. It forces parties to adopt policies/platforms that people want, or they dissappear and make room for parties that ~do~ reflect what people want. All this BS about public funding is being spouted by parties who are convinced they shouldnt have to deal with the fickle support of the people; they are convinced they are right and should be in office/have a loud voice anyway regardless of their level of public support (i.e the US Greens). If the Greens have a hard time collecting money, then maybe they should pull their heads out of their asses and start listening and representing rather than lecturing and dictating. They are one of many small parties who dont have a lot of money ~for a reason~, and that reason is they dont have much support.
Public political party/candidate 'pools' are just a way for parties to get around the nasty dirty little detail of actually building support.
If someones stated reasons for wanting something dont make sense, then perhaps their stated reasons are not true or are incomplete, thus indicating the probable existance of ulterior reasons.
/. seem to be human and let the media drive the debate.
Basically, while on the surface this seems to be about root servers and protocols, thats ultimately not what its about. Im not sure why thats the only thing people focus on; yes, even people on
but the concept of "civil disobedience" as a political tool and means for change depends on the visibility and public nature of the disobedience.
The problem with that is that it establishes the false dictum that a law is 'bad' or not merely depending on the number of people who protest it.
If 100 people stand around chanting songs protesting a law, they can safely be ignored, but if 1,000,000 people stand and chant protesting the same law, they cant be? At what random number in between 100 and 1,000,000 did it go from a good law to a bad law?
If its a bad law, its a bad law, regardless of how many people visibly protest, whether its one or one million. By simply ignoring the law and behaving as one would anyway, the law will not have the desired affect and it will be shown to be the bad law it is.
Yes, and that goes a long way to explaining why more adult Swedes live and work outside of Sweden than in it.
Youre describing just so much adolescent posturing; just as stupid as martydom. You wish to empirically demonstrate to whatever govt that they chose the correct strategy to flush out the ones they seek. Youre just saving them money on having to go out and find you. How noble.
Yes, stand up, paint a target on your back; go to prison. Boy, youll sure show them huh? Thatll teach the govt....how dare they pass unjust laws. Yeah, teach them a lesson and rot in prison; they sure wont do that again. Im sure your family will be able to pay the bills while youre in jail with the noble feeling they get knowing you were In The Right; Im sure your kids wont mind being hungry cause Dads a Noble Fellow.
Ive read Thoreau, but I fail to see how the definition of a term as it was 150 odd years ago has anything to do with how a term is defined now. Words do not have static unshifting meaning, they change with time. Thats why we have dictionaries for words but not for numbers.
Uh, the Million Man March had nothing to do with civil disobedience....what are you talking about?
Civil disobedience in this case just means smuggling. Just as smoking a joint when its against the law is civil disobedience, downloading from file shares when its against the law is civil disobedience. When it comes to file sharing, there is allready civil disobedience by far more than just a million people.
Civil disobedience is just ignoring a law as if it doesnt exist. Sure, you can hold hands in a crowd in front of the white house and yell at the top of your lungs that you arent going to obey a law; that is civil disobedience too, its just stupid civil disobedience.
Go ahead and reveal yourself to those who want to imprison you, make it easy for them...me, Ill just sit here and dowload music while smoking a joint.
Its pretty clear this isnt about just domain names. From http://www.wgig.org/index.html:
12. It should be made clear, however, that Internet governance includes more than Internet names and addresses, issues dealt with by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN): it also includes other significant public policy issues, such as critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet.
The really rediculous quote from the paper though is:
Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
Whats this in their respective roles crap? Who is it thats going to define what ones 'respective role' is? Why should we accept some UN idiots labeling of different groups? What the hell is the difference between the private sector and civil society? If govt supposedly reflects the values of a society, what is the difference between governments and civil society? What moron wrote this rag?
Its all in the mix. Does the pop youre talking about sound the same live?
Lord Hendrix on album was a completely different thing than Lord Hendrix live.
As to the rest of your post:
Most of the taxes were tariffs on imported goods and the rest were on sales of luxury items like tobacco and booze. Pretty much opposite of the "free trade" advocates.
Well yes, and we also were on the gold standard. Big huge gaping fundamental difference there between then and now.
Also, you dont seem to be aware of the difference between capitalism and mercantilism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
Mercantilism is the economic theory that a nation's prosperity depends upon its supply of capital and that the global volume of trade is unchangeable. The amount of capital, represented by bullion (amount of precious metal held by the state), is best increased through a balance of trade with large exports and low imports.
The battle between mercantilists and capitalists was one of the first big debates of the early US. Its pretty moot now since much of the logic espoused by you (and mercantilists), is based on there being a gold standard (one finite amount of wealth). Luckily, our currency is no longer backed by a finite natural resource. Its backed by human labor. The more people working whether manufacturing or providing services, the more money can be printed without lessening the value of the pool of money.
You are thinking in terms of a system where the amount of money in circulation (and thus its value) has little to do with the amount of goods and services produced; you are thinking in terms of the amount of money printed (and thus its value) is dependant on our acquiring/retaining more of the finite resource it is backed by.
If we were still on the gold standard, or our currency was backed by some other finite natural resource, your post would make more sense.
In a village full of lazy fat people who all own widgets, the man carrying people accross the street on his back is creating more value (wealth) than the man who makes widgets.
So, about 110 years until we had even a basic income tax.
a cific_Railroad
Sure. Most challenges to income tax derive from the argument that it is a direct tax rather than an indirect tax. But the definition of direct taxation was given in 1796 - direct taxes are a tax on owned wealth (in 1796, land and slaves). All modern property taxes are direct taxes. Indirect taxes are a tax on commerce, and when you trade your labor for money/goods/servies, you are engaging in comerce.
If you own an apartment building, the property tax you pay on the market value of the land/building is a direct tax, while the tax you pay on the income ~derived~ from your property (the profit made) is an indirect tax, and subject to excise taxes.
Even though we havent always had an income tax, it has been repeatedly found that congress has always had the authority to levy one.
From http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct:
The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this narrow view of "Capitation, or other direct, Tax," when it decided the case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Four separate opinions were written by the justices who heard the case (separate opinions were the common practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).
Also:
The question of whether an individual income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
If youre more into Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_v._Union_P
Although they are correct in stating the Court's finding that the Sixteenth Amendment gave "no new power to tax," this is not because the amendment was ineffective. Instead, the Court merely found that Congress always had the power to tax incomes, and that the amendment only affects the way that such taxes must be apportioned.
While I dont completely agree with the line of reasoning of the GP, I do think he has a point in that in the abstract this does touch on the EU and UN wanting control of the root servers.
Americans are used to being free to do something unless there is a law prohibiting it, while the vast majority in the rest of the world are used to being free to do something once a law has been passed allowing it.
Our constitution is a document which defines the limitations of the authority of govt without enumerating rights, while the UN Declaration on Human Rights and most other constitutions pretty much just enumerate rights and dont really address the limitations of govt authority.
Its like the difference between setting your firewall to allow all, then constantly updating the list of IPs you wont allow vs. setting it to deny all and selectively adding to a list of trusted IPs (the firewall in this case being an individual, the IPs being limitations on individual rights).
So yes, in the abstract, its issues like this that are ~exactly~ the reason why the thought of turning control over to the UN and/or EU is stomach turning.