Most of the parent story was plagiarized from WebAim (http://webaim.org/blog/dept-of-justice-considers-web-for-ada/). This is stolen almost verbatim from the WebAim site.
The question is not whether ACTA is in the public interest, but whether it's in the collective interest of those empowered to enact it. It's safe to assume that with the supporters of ACTA in control of a lot of cash and the majority of television airtime, the folks in power are very likely not giving a rat's behind what these professors and petitions are saying.
All the more reason for "ordinary" citizens to sign petitions and send letters to their elected reps.
People wanted "net neutrality." Well, this is what you get when you hand control of the Internet over to the government.
Net Neutrality doesn't mean handing over the control of the Internet to the government - it already has that, running the root DNS servers for example. Net Neutrality means that an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination.
I've never understood what goes on in the head of a net neutrality supporter who wants the government to regulate net traffic, as if the government isn't more corrupt, inept, and power-hungry than corporations.
Probably some actual knowledge of the issue, rather than right-wing propaganda. You know, actually knowing what Net Neutrality means, which you obviously don't.
And our taxes aren't even all that much higher when you add up all your state and local taxes. Plus a study has shown that citizens earning up to $85k/yr get back services worth more than that. We also live longer and do better in almost any social stat you can think of. But not to sound smug: we are far from perfect, and 30% of us seem hell-bent on voting for a party determined to be as Republican as they can.
This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
And as we all know, local people always benefit from mining, extracting, and harvesting operations. Just ask the folks in Nigeria how they are benefitting from oil operations.
...So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. Think Florida, which could go either way.
It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around Adelaide; a highly religious, conservative city known as "The City of Churches"...
Which means our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."
It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.
Sorry for the mess you're in. I hope we in Canada don't end up with the same Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber no choice between parties.
If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society
Nonsense. The folk with smartphones are typically those who'd already interact with government. You are doing absolutely nothing to interact with those who are totally disenfranchised. You know - the ones who cannot afford the net, cannot afford a fancy phone?
I think you have made too large an assumption and ignored the points about the usefulness of allowing people to interact how, when, and in a manner of their choosing. Good apps are a net benefit.
Most people have no clue what most error messages say to them, so they can't possibly remember what they say. Making sure error messages say something a regular person can understand will make it more likely they will read, and remember the messages. It's just like asking someone to remember names in their mother tongue or a completely different language: it's way easier for people to remember names from their own language.
I agree that I can understand it a bit. The satire uses too much misdirection. They could have made the point even better by not copying exactly the look and domain. A very large majority of people recognize that there are legitimate limits to free speech (e.g. the famous "can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre"). I think the Yes Men made a tactical error. However, it is good that people see the backwards approach being taken by the Canadian government on the issue of global warming. It all fits in with the philosophy of the people in the Conservative party who do not believe in a progressive role for government, much like members of the second Bush administration.
Prof. Geist tweeted on Monday that the correct figure is $6 Billion and not $60B, but it is still a lot of cash. They have shown how greedy they are and single-mindedly in pursuit of the dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the same at all if the scientists are heaping scorn on things because the methods, conclusions, etc., aren't supported by the evidence.
That's 'cuz we're only human, Jim.
Most of the parent story was plagiarized from WebAim (http://webaim.org/blog/dept-of-justice-considers-web-for-ada/). This is stolen almost verbatim from the WebAim site.
Superb note. I wish I could mod you up to +10.
The question is not whether ACTA is in the public interest, but whether it's in the collective interest of those empowered to enact it. It's safe to assume that with the supporters of ACTA in control of a lot of cash and the majority of television airtime, the folks in power are very likely not giving a rat's behind what these professors and petitions are saying.
All the more reason for "ordinary" citizens to sign petitions and send letters to their elected reps.
Net Neutrality doesn't mean handing over the control of the Internet to the government - it already has that, running the root DNS servers for example. Net Neutrality means that an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination.
Probably some actual knowledge of the issue, rather than right-wing propaganda. You know, actually knowing what Net Neutrality means, which you obviously don't.
Great reply; maybe they'll learn something.
I have read much of what they write and also some of the Fraser Institute and find it hard to believe that they are equivalent. Thanks, though.
Please check this out: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/canadas-quiet-bargain
Not really, no.
More info can be found here: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/canadas-quiet-bargain Tax cuts mean services cuts, and most people would be better off pooling resources for services rather than paying for everything themselves.
And our taxes aren't even all that much higher when you add up all your state and local taxes. Plus a study has shown that citizens earning up to $85k/yr get back services worth more than that. We also live longer and do better in almost any social stat you can think of. But not to sound smug: we are far from perfect, and 30% of us seem hell-bent on voting for a party determined to be as Republican as they can.
This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
And as we all know, local people always benefit from mining, extracting, and harvesting operations. Just ask the folks in Nigeria how they are benefitting from oil operations.
...So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. Think Florida, which could go either way.
It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around Adelaide; a highly religious, conservative city known as "The City of Churches"...
Which means our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."
It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.
Sorry for the mess you're in. I hope we in Canada don't end up with the same Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber no choice between parties.
Is it really necessary for anyone to announce that Duke Nukem is not forthcoming?
Nonsense. The folk with smartphones are typically those who'd already interact with government. You are doing absolutely nothing to interact with those who are totally disenfranchised. You know - the ones who cannot afford the net, cannot afford a fancy phone?
I think you have made too large an assumption and ignored the points about the usefulness of allowing people to interact how, when, and in a manner of their choosing. Good apps are a net benefit.
Absolutely true. Great post. If I had mod points...
Most people have no clue what most error messages say to them, so they can't possibly remember what they say. Making sure error messages say something a regular person can understand will make it more likely they will read, and remember the messages. It's just like asking someone to remember names in their mother tongue or a completely different language: it's way easier for people to remember names from their own language.
I meant to test ginkgo myself but kept forgetting to take it!
I agree that I can understand it a bit. The satire uses too much misdirection. They could have made the point even better by not copying exactly the look and domain. A very large majority of people recognize that there are legitimate limits to free speech (e.g. the famous "can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre"). I think the Yes Men made a tactical error. However, it is good that people see the backwards approach being taken by the Canadian government on the issue of global warming. It all fits in with the philosophy of the people in the Conservative party who do not believe in a progressive role for government, much like members of the second Bush administration.
Prof. Geist tweeted on Monday that the correct figure is $6 Billion and not $60B, but it is still a lot of cash. They have shown how greedy they are and single-mindedly in pursuit of the dollar.
I agree. This is from 123 Fake St.