I still would rather have Congress and the FCC do nothing to change the net, then have them "do something."
Darryl Issa, the sponsor this year of H.R. 3782: "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act", isn't interested in Congress doing nothing to change the net.
Even if he happens right now to be making an empty, symbolic gesture in that direction.
The FCC is especially dangerous. Look at how much they cater to the mobile companies' desires.
So much that every actual mobile operator is opposed to the open internet rules adopted by the FCC?
Do we really want the determining what 'Net Neutrality' means.
While I certainly have some quibbles with the open internet rules that they adopted, they are much better than the status quo ante in terms of guaranteeing the right for users to connect devices and run any legal application with limited interference from broadband providers, so while they haven't been perfect, I prefer that to any simply not having them do so with no superior replacement.
Darrell Issa strongly opposes net neutrality [theverge.com], with a Republican platform that supports some ironic thing called "internet freedom" [theverge.com]. Last year, Issa ripped into FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski [pcworld.com] at a Congressional hearing, accusing him of doing Obama's bidding regarding net neutrality (wtf?).
Well, if Issa's bill wasn't an ineffective, substance-free gesture, and actually could magically prevent Congress from being able to pass legislation effecting the internet, it would also prevent Congress from doing a legislative override of the FCC net neutrality regulation, since that would be legislation effecting the internet.
Its not really a law. a moratorium is basically a collective agreement to focus on other things. and congress makes these sorts of collective agreements/resolutions regularly, typically at the begining of a new session (which would be right about now)
No, this is not the beginning of the new session. The beginning of the new session (which is also the beginning of a new Congress this year) is in January. And bills in process don't carry over to the new Congress, so even if we looked at this as somehow analogous to an organizing or rules resolution (which it isn't, even though that's how you are characterizing it) for the new session, it wouldn't make any sense.
Its partly true they can certainly make a law (A) that says they can't make laws but there is nothing to stop them from creating a law (B) that explicitly says it invalidates (A) and also does "some stuff".
Its not even necessary for the later law to explicitly say that it invalidates (A). Later enactments supercede older enactments to the extent that they have an irreconcilable conflict. Any law explicitly regulating conduct on the internet would conflict with the moratorium, and would thus override it without any explicit statement.
Which is why the moratorium is stupid.
What this is, is Issa, for good or bad, is trying to do something that most of/. would agree with. Stop messing with the Internet.
No, its not.
Its Issa making a symbolic, substance-free gesture in order to generate the illusion that he is interested in stopping government messing with the Internet.
When you look at the substantive legislation affecting how the government does or does not regulate private industry and activity that that Issa has sponsored in the last year, that illusion is hard to maintain. See, particularly, H.R. 3782, the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act".
Some people can't wrap their heads around the fact that Issa is doing something good (motive unknown) while being an (R) and that is causing their heads to assplode.
Between the two major parties in the US, I'm solidly in the Democratic camp -- and yet I can still recognize that there are plenty of Republicans that have sponsored or supported good legislation (even recently.) But Issa's empty symbolic gesture isn't doing here isn't something good, its doing something empty, meaningless, and distracting.
For example, the rules of the U.S. Senate, readopted as each new class of senators is sworn in, require 60 percent assent for a "cloture" motion to proceed on a bill.
Right, but the rules are only enforceable by the Senate itself. That is, if the Senate really wanted to, it could ignore the rules. In fact, the idea of doing so with regard to filibuster (usually by the expedient of the presiding member ruling that the rule does not apply to a particular vote, which would then be upheld by a simple majority if the ruling was challenged) has been raised numerous times -- most notably as the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option with regard to Presidential nominees.
The fact that the Senate majority has chosen not to bypass the rule is not evidence that it is bound by the rule, since the rule at any time could be rendered ineffective in any particular case or class of cases by a decision of the chair upheld by a majority of the Senate. Constitutionally, the rules of the Senate are whatever a majority of the Senate says they are at the moment.
This is a simple question of whether government controls their territory and the people in it or controls their territory and residents, no matter where they are located or conducting business.
False dichotomy, of course; governments can, of course, assert authority over both everyone that is within their territory (regardless of nationality) and everyone of their nationality (regardless of their location.)
And can even go further and also exert authority over actions that effect their territory or people of their nationality, regardless of the nationality of the actor instigating the action.
And can go even further still and also exert authority over certain actions regardless of the nationality of the actors or the effected persons or territory, or the location of the action.
In fact, most sovereign nations on earth exert authority over actions in all of the listed classes.
I wouldn't expect the US government to prosecute fraud when I conduct business in Prague. I would expect that to be in the CR jurisdiction, even if both ends of the transaction were US residents.
National jurisdictions are often not mutually exclusive.
So it is clear that first-past-the-post has nothing whatsoever to do with the ossified dominance of the two major parties in the US.
The Canadian and British examples you cite give reason to doubt that FPTP is the sole source of that stable US national duopoly, but they fall well short of making it clear that FPTP has nothing to do with it. In fact, FPTP isn't the sole source, but has quite a lot to do with it.
FPTP creates a strong pressure to a two-party system, but can result in regional two-party systems. (And, in fact, there've been durable regional duopolies in the US that don't reflect the national duopoly, such as the long run of the Farmer-Labor party as the second party along with the Republicans in Minnesota's two-party system, which only became aligned with the national duopoly when the FL party joined wth the Democratic as the DFL party in Minnesota.)
In the US, the fact that in addition to FPTP we also have a strong and separately elected executive administration rather than a government established by a Parliamentary majority (which might be formed by an ad hoc coalition of parties none of which has its own majority) increases the pressure for a national two-party system beyond that seen in countries that have FPTP in a parliamentary system. The stronger pressure for a national two-party system (and thus, the higher bar for a party to survive, as its harder for what nationally might be a minor party to survive as a regional first- or second-party) also makes for a more stable party system that is harder to break into than would be the case in an FPTP parliamentary system.
The futures market is not just a gambling forum... they are actually trading contracts for goods. Futures contracts give farmers a stable market for their goods, and having at least some kind of exchange market is necessary for liquidity and efficiency. People certainly can use a futures market for gambling, but that is not the primary purpose. A "prediction" market is fundamentally different - at no point is a good delivered... it is pure gambling.
Legally, its a futures market. At least, that's the position the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (which regulates futures markets) took in the first Intrade case (leading to the settlement agreement) as well as this one (which involves, among other things, claims that Intrade is violating the settlement agreement.)
Gaming is very heavily regulated in the US, even if not all at the federal level.
Perhaps, but none of the gaming regulations are at issue with Intrade. What is at issues is futures trading regulations.
So you think the US can stop you from purchasing wine while in Italy on vacation?
That's a bad analogy, since the part of the law which empowers the CFTC in this case empowers them to address foreign trading houses which permit "participants located in the United States with direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system" operated by the trading house. (7 USC Sec. 6(b)(1)(A), emphasis added.)
This is a question of a foreign government's encroachment on the sovereignty of a business.
Businesses don't have sovereignty to encroach upon.
The actual answer is gambling by wire is illegal in the US, since the federal government as jurisdiction on most communications infrastructure.
No, the actual answer is that options trading (not gambling) is regulated (not prohibited) in the US, including -- specifically -- foreign-operated trading houses that provide "persons located in the US direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system".
But, is this really 'trading futures'? My understanding is that real futures trading is defined thusly [investopedia.com]:
Investopedia isn't the definition that controls in the law. With regard to the scope of what the CFTC regulates, look to Title 7 of the United States Code, particularly Sections 1a, 2, and 6.
InTrade is acting as a futures market in the US, so it needs to be regulated by the SEC
Actually, the CFTC, which is why the CFTC and not the SEC is bringing a complaint. While some futures trading is also security trading (e.g., stock options) and falls under the SEC purview, non-securities futures trading generally falls under the CFTC purview.
Then why can I trade on the London Stock Exchange?
Unless you are a broker with a seat on the exchange, you can't (you can enter into a contract with a US-licensed brokerage firm who also has a seat -- or perhaps has a relationship with a firm that has a seat -- on the LSE, and have them make the trade on your behalf.) The London Stock Exchange -- like most stock exchanges -- does not directly solicit regular investors (in the US or elsewhere) to trade directly on the exchange, and, unlike Intrade, hasn't previously settled a complaint from the appropriate US regulators charging that it did so by agreeing to a specific set of actions it would take.
Its not. Its illegal under US law to offer within the US the types of contracts that are sold on Intrade without being a an approved exchange, which Intrade is not.
Or is this just being treated as a special case of on-line gambling, which apparently the world would end if allowed.
No, its being treated as unlicensed futures trading, which is why the action was brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Yes, if the US government is attempting to extend it's legal jurisdiction to control what a sovereign foreign national or foreign business does in their own nation. Does Iran get to extradite and prosecute Hollywood film companies and/or their execs for depicting women not covered by hijabs and/or burqas?
Well, no. Because they don't have an extradition agreement with the US that would make that an extraditable offense.
But they are free to file actions in their own courts for that, and, on conviction, seize any assets those Hollywood film companies have in Iran to satisfy any judgements. (They couldn't get the civil judgement enforced in US courts, because they have no agreement with the US allowing that.)
The US doesn't ban gambling, they protect the government's monopoly of it.
Actually, that's not true. The US doesn't ban gambling or exert a federal government monopoly on it, though it does regulate certain kinds of gambling, and prohibit some kinds. (The particular issue here, options trading, isn't a government monopoly -- the exchanges that are approved to do it are regulated by the government, but not operated by the government.)
Many US states limit gambling and assert a government monopoly on certain types of gambling (e.g., lotteries), but that's not the federal government.
A simpler way would simply to make any debts associated with locally illegal services unenforceable.
They already generally are, as the contract on which the debt is based would generally be void as contrary to public policy, and, consequently, no debt would ever be created.
Android 4.2 (at least on tablets) supports multiple users. Not sure if this feature is enabled on phones (4.1.2 is the latest I've used).
Not sure why you'd need a hypervisor.
You'd need a hypervisor so that you can have completely separate OS's for the personal and corporate side, so that a user with root access to the personal OS would still have only controlled access to the corporate side and so that software (including OS) updates for the corporate side could be managed completely separately from software on the personal side.
My point was not to make you believe that social mobility was getting better, or that there were no problems. In general I think that profit motive is better managed in a capitalistic society vs a communist society.
If you define "communist society" as "societies applying the Leninist, cadre-led model first adopted by the Soviet Union" and "capitalist society" as "any society that's not communist", that's probably true.
If you look at "capitalist" and "communist" the way they were defined by the 19th Century socialists who coined both terms, well, most "capitalist" societies -- the advanced economies of both the 19th Century and today -- are now what is usually called "mixed economies", which are in many ways closer to the original communist program (and certainly got where they were in a manner much closer to what the original Communist called for then any Leninist, cadre-led revolutionary regime) than anything else you'll find.
But, really, "communist" is mostly a term used to distract. The real serious debates in economic system in the modern developed world (including the USA) aren't between "communism" and "capitalism" and people trying to sell them as such are trying to muddy the issue. The debates are mostly over fine tuning within the mixed economy model, and the really radical (in terms of its relation to the mixed-economy status quo, though in a sense "reactionary" would be more on point) view that has some serious adherents isn't a move toward pure (whether Marx/Engels or Leninist/Soviet-style) communism, but a reversion to gilded-age capitalism from the modern mixed economy.
But
There is a major difference between political anarchy and chaos. In political anarchy you still have order, but instead of a central government controlling everything it's done with voluntary contracts at the individual level.
In much the same way that there is a difference between Leninist Communism and authoritarian dictatorship -- that is, the difference is purely an notional one in the idealized description, but not a difference that there is any reason to believe would actually have any practical manifestation were the ideal actually attempted to be put into practice in a real society with real people.
As Madison wrote: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Systems of anarchy or unrestrained government both fail in the absence of angels.
All anecdotes, I admit, yet they attest to the American dream still living. Those who knock it, are those unwilling to try and fail and try again.
Or, you know, the people that look at data rather than anecdotes and note the erosion both of the middle class and social mobility since the 1970s. If you cherry-pick the non-representative success stories you can fine and cast them as representative you can build a narrative that allows you to ignore the growing problem until there are no successes, but why would you want to?
which is what the.int domain is for, although for some bizarre reason the biggest treaty organization of them all, the United Nations, is at un.org rather than un.int.
The UN actually has both un.int and un.org; on the web, un.org is used for the public-facing website, and un.int is used for the "Member States portal".
I suspect they may have been using.org before.int was setup in 1988 (which was spurred by NATO getting.nato -- before that I think they were using.mil even though they weren't US military -- and people realizing the kind of explosion that would happen if every international organization got a TLD like that.)
Slashdot Mirror
Darryl Issa, the sponsor this year of H.R. 3782: "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act", isn't interested in Congress doing nothing to change the net. Even if he happens right now to be making an empty, symbolic gesture in that direction.
So much that every actual mobile operator is opposed to the open internet rules adopted by the FCC?
While I certainly have some quibbles with the open internet rules that they adopted, they are much better than the status quo ante in terms of guaranteeing the right for users to connect devices and run any legal application with limited interference from broadband providers, so while they haven't been perfect, I prefer that to any simply not having them do so with no superior replacement.
Well, if Issa's bill wasn't an ineffective, substance-free gesture, and actually could magically prevent Congress from being able to pass legislation effecting the internet, it would also prevent Congress from doing a legislative override of the FCC net neutrality regulation, since that would be legislation effecting the internet.
No, this is not the beginning of the new session. The beginning of the new session (which is also the beginning of a new Congress this year) is in January. And bills in process don't carry over to the new Congress, so even if we looked at this as somehow analogous to an organizing or rules resolution (which it isn't, even though that's how you are characterizing it) for the new session, it wouldn't make any sense.
Its not even necessary for the later law to explicitly say that it invalidates (A). Later enactments supercede older enactments to the extent that they have an irreconcilable conflict. Any law explicitly regulating conduct on the internet would conflict with the moratorium, and would thus override it without any explicit statement. Which is why the moratorium is stupid.
No, its not. Its Issa making a symbolic, substance-free gesture in order to generate the illusion that he is interested in stopping government messing with the Internet. When you look at the substantive legislation affecting how the government does or does not regulate private industry and activity that that Issa has sponsored in the last year, that illusion is hard to maintain. See, particularly, H.R. 3782, the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act".
Between the two major parties in the US, I'm solidly in the Democratic camp -- and yet I can still recognize that there are plenty of Republicans that have sponsored or supported good legislation (even recently.) But Issa's empty symbolic gesture isn't doing here isn't something good, its doing something empty, meaningless, and distracting.
No, they can't.
Right, but the rules are only enforceable by the Senate itself. That is, if the Senate really wanted to, it could ignore the rules. In fact, the idea of doing so with regard to filibuster (usually by the expedient of the presiding member ruling that the rule does not apply to a particular vote, which would then be upheld by a simple majority if the ruling was challenged) has been raised numerous times -- most notably as the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option with regard to Presidential nominees.
The fact that the Senate majority has chosen not to bypass the rule is not evidence that it is bound by the rule, since the rule at any time could be rendered ineffective in any particular case or class of cases by a decision of the chair upheld by a majority of the Senate. Constitutionally, the rules of the Senate are whatever a majority of the Senate says they are at the moment.
False dichotomy, of course; governments can, of course, assert authority over both everyone that is within their territory (regardless of nationality) and everyone of their nationality (regardless of their location.)
And can even go further and also exert authority over actions that effect their territory or people of their nationality, regardless of the nationality of the actor instigating the action.
And can go even further still and also exert authority over certain actions regardless of the nationality of the actors or the effected persons or territory, or the location of the action.
In fact, most sovereign nations on earth exert authority over actions in all of the listed classes.
National jurisdictions are often not mutually exclusive.
The Canadian and British examples you cite give reason to doubt that FPTP is the sole source of that stable US national duopoly, but they fall well short of making it clear that FPTP has nothing to do with it. In fact, FPTP isn't the sole source, but has quite a lot to do with it.
FPTP creates a strong pressure to a two-party system, but can result in regional two-party systems. (And, in fact, there've been durable regional duopolies in the US that don't reflect the national duopoly, such as the long run of the Farmer-Labor party as the second party along with the Republicans in Minnesota's two-party system, which only became aligned with the national duopoly when the FL party joined wth the Democratic as the DFL party in Minnesota.)
In the US, the fact that in addition to FPTP we also have a strong and separately elected executive administration rather than a government established by a Parliamentary majority (which might be formed by an ad hoc coalition of parties none of which has its own majority) increases the pressure for a national two-party system beyond that seen in countries that have FPTP in a parliamentary system. The stronger pressure for a national two-party system (and thus, the higher bar for a party to survive, as its harder for what nationally might be a minor party to survive as a regional first- or second-party) also makes for a more stable party system that is harder to break into than would be the case in an FPTP parliamentary system.
Legally, its a futures market. At least, that's the position the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (which regulates futures markets) took in the first Intrade case (leading to the settlement agreement) as well as this one (which involves, among other things, claims that Intrade is violating the settlement agreement.)
Perhaps, but none of the gaming regulations are at issue with Intrade. What is at issues is futures trading regulations.
That's a bad analogy, since the part of the law which empowers the CFTC in this case empowers them to address foreign trading houses which permit "participants located in the United States with direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system" operated by the trading house. (7 USC Sec. 6(b)(1)(A), emphasis added.)
Businesses don't have sovereignty to encroach upon.
No, the actual answer is that options trading (not gambling) is regulated (not prohibited) in the US, including -- specifically -- foreign-operated trading houses that provide "persons located in the US direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system".
Investopedia isn't the definition that controls in the law. With regard to the scope of what the CFTC regulates, look to Title 7 of the United States Code, particularly Sections 1a, 2, and 6.
Actually, the CFTC, which is why the CFTC and not the SEC is bringing a complaint. While some futures trading is also security trading (e.g., stock options) and falls under the SEC purview, non-securities futures trading generally falls under the CFTC purview.
Unless you are a broker with a seat on the exchange, you can't (you can enter into a contract with a US-licensed brokerage firm who also has a seat -- or perhaps has a relationship with a firm that has a seat -- on the LSE, and have them make the trade on your behalf.) The London Stock Exchange -- like most stock exchanges -- does not directly solicit regular investors (in the US or elsewhere) to trade directly on the exchange, and, unlike Intrade, hasn't previously settled a complaint from the appropriate US regulators charging that it did so by agreeing to a specific set of actions it would take.
Its not. Its illegal under US law to offer within the US the types of contracts that are sold on Intrade without being a an approved exchange, which Intrade is not.
No, its being treated as unlicensed futures trading, which is why the action was brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Well, no. Because they don't have an extradition agreement with the US that would make that an extraditable offense.
But they are free to file actions in their own courts for that, and, on conviction, seize any assets those Hollywood film companies have in Iran to satisfy any judgements. (They couldn't get the civil judgement enforced in US courts, because they have no agreement with the US allowing that.)
Actually, that's not true. The US doesn't ban gambling or exert a federal government monopoly on it, though it does regulate certain kinds of gambling, and prohibit some kinds. (The particular issue here, options trading, isn't a government monopoly -- the exchanges that are approved to do it are regulated by the government, but not operated by the government.) Many US states limit gambling and assert a government monopoly on certain types of gambling (e.g., lotteries), but that's not the federal government.
They already generally are, as the contract on which the debt is based would generally be void as contrary to public policy, and, consequently, no debt would ever be created.
You'd need a hypervisor so that you can have completely separate OS's for the personal and corporate side, so that a user with root access to the personal OS would still have only controlled access to the corporate side and so that software (including OS) updates for the corporate side could be managed completely separately from software on the personal side.
If you define "communist society" as "societies applying the Leninist, cadre-led model first adopted by the Soviet Union" and "capitalist society" as "any society that's not communist", that's probably true.
If you look at "capitalist" and "communist" the way they were defined by the 19th Century socialists who coined both terms, well, most "capitalist" societies -- the advanced economies of both the 19th Century and today -- are now what is usually called "mixed economies", which are in many ways closer to the original communist program (and certainly got where they were in a manner much closer to what the original Communist called for then any Leninist, cadre-led revolutionary regime) than anything else you'll find.
But, really, "communist" is mostly a term used to distract. The real serious debates in economic system in the modern developed world (including the USA) aren't between "communism" and "capitalism" and people trying to sell them as such are trying to muddy the issue. The debates are mostly over fine tuning within the mixed economy model, and the really radical (in terms of its relation to the mixed-economy status quo, though in a sense "reactionary" would be more on point) view that has some serious adherents isn't a move toward pure (whether Marx/Engels or Leninist/Soviet-style) communism, but a reversion to gilded-age capitalism from the modern mixed economy. But
In much the same way that there is a difference between Leninist Communism and authoritarian dictatorship -- that is, the difference is purely an notional one in the idealized description, but not a difference that there is any reason to believe would actually have any practical manifestation were the ideal actually attempted to be put into practice in a real society with real people.
As Madison wrote: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Systems of anarchy or unrestrained government both fail in the absence of angels.
Or, you know, the people that look at data rather than anecdotes and note the erosion both of the middle class and social mobility since the 1970s. If you cherry-pick the non-representative success stories you can fine and cast them as representative you can build a narrative that allows you to ignore the growing problem until there are no successes, but why would you want to?
One, two, three, its all the same when you have nuclear-fucking-weapons!
The UN actually has both un.int and un.org; on the web, un.org is used for the public-facing website, and un.int is used for the "Member States portal". I suspect they may have been using .org before .int was setup in 1988 (which was spurred by NATO getting .nato -- before that I think they were using .mil even though they weren't US military -- and people realizing the kind of explosion that would happen if every international organization got a TLD like that.)
Well, everyone... ...except Firefox (and its derivatives, since its open source.) ...and Opera.