So suck it up. If it really bothers you that freaking much, move. I live with a smelly mountain of garbage in my back yard, and they're gonna keep the damn thing open even longer (at least if city council gets its way). You NIMBY types piss me the hell off, because you only worry about the negative consequences that could affect you, rather than the benefits that everyone, including you, will receive.
Probably, but good luck finding the paper trail. As for TPB, it'll just migrate. There's enough countries who aren't exactly friendly to US copyright that are chock full of people willing to run Pirate Bay servers.
Look. These updates are not mandatory. My Wii currently is not connected to the internet and doing just fine. Even when it is, you have to set it up to install updates automatically. You should have known that by hacking a proprietary system that further updates would probably screw over your hack. Just be glad you didn't get bricked. Caveat emptor, my friend.
Below a certain age, x, corporal punishment is useless, because the brain cannot properly make the connection between cause and effect. After a different age, y, corporal punishment is useless, because it does not change the logic that led to the original offense. However, between x and y, corporal punishment can be very useful. When the brain understand cause and effect, pain is very effective and creating the cause-effect link that leads to avoiding said behaviour.
Now, I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I offer to you my situation. At a young age, a spanking was all I understood. After a while, it became that spankings were for the extreme offenses, and being sent to kneel/stand in a corner was for the rest. Then, after that, it hit the point where punishments were removal of privileges and groundings, or else an addition of chores to do. Now, they can't punish me: only the law can. At different stages of development, I understood different things. At a young age, pain is the only possible negative consequence. Later, removal of certain freedoms. Then, removal of different freedoms. The point is, spanking is a perfectly acceptable consequence, granted that you know your child well enough to know whether or not it will work.
These aren't sales figures. This is just figuring out how many people in a given area have a certain type of line. And I'd love to complain, but I doubt they give a rat's ass about some kid in Ottawa.
Then how should it be funded? People are selfish, stupid, and short sighted. It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it. You know damn well that there are very few people who'll part with their paycheck without immediately getting something for it. The government may damn well be evil, but it's a necessary evil.
And how do you propose said private organization get at this "private" information (your words, used further up the discussion list)? Surely the companies won't willingly give this information up to a private organization unless there's something in it for them. That usually means money, and large amounts of it, which create a very high barrier to entry for such an organization. That or else government legislation. Oh wait, that's what the FCC is doing.
No, you've asserted that the status quo is wrong. It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it. You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond.
It's information acquired by force. I have no right to pass out your social security number if I get it out of you by force. Do you agree? Nobody, not even the government, has the right to spread private information that was taken by force.
More strawmen. The government applies legal force such as legislation, taxation, and civil / criminal action to obtain said information (though it's really a threat of force). Getting my social security number out of me is a different matter, as it is a very personal thing (as opposed to the statistical nature of the information the FCC is withholding) and can cause me severe damage. Not to mention it seems that the force required to get my social security number out of me is probably of a more physical nature, or a trick. Even if I willingly give you my SSN for any one of many legal purposes, you can't spread it around because of privacy laws. Please be more careful with your definition of force.
As I said, if something is withheld, and it negatively impacts you, you can take them to court. I covered that in my first post. Just because preemptively forcing someone to do something is more convenient than suing them after the fact, that doesn't make it right.
What if you don't know they're withholding something from you until something bad happens? Like I said, side effects of medication. And besides, suing them will result in the information being placed in the public record through some form of government force (the courts are part of the government, eh), so it's both prudent, expedient, and safer to require certain forms of information be displayed in advance.
Let's follow the logic. The government demands people give up money. People give into those demands (some willingly, others not).
The government demands people give up money because the people demand a government. It's a trade off, and one most are willing to make. Those who aren't should be given the option to leave (at least, if there's anywhere willing to take them), otherwise they are antisocial and leeching off a system that provides them benefits without paying for it. I suggest you read some theory on social contract, especially Thomas Hobbes and other related philosophers. Note that a lot of them are full of shit, but it still gives you an idea of the justification for government.
They use the money to demand companies give up information. The companies give into the demand and give up the information. So the information rightfully belongs to the people?
They don't use the money to demand companies to give up information, they use the power that the people gave them to demand companies give up information. Remember, those same companies benefit from the existence of government (through various legal channels, such as tax breaks and government handouts). Whether or not they deserve to is another question entirely. The companies then willingly give up the information (or don't, and face the consequences) for various reasons (threat of negative consequences, acknowledgment of government aid, etc...). So the information does ultimately belong to the people. You also seem to make a fairly strange mistake of assuming that, because the government has this information, no one else can.
Of course, my arguments are mostly meaningless to you, since you seem to have major issues with the existence of a government that is empowered to tax people and use force to ensure compliance.
Wrong and just plain stupid laws still carry consequences. If you break the law, you run the risk of getting punished, no matter how annoying/stupid/evil/unconstitutional the law is. To quote Mr. Thoreau, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
It is not the government's property. It was forcibly taken and should be treated just as any other forcibly taken property. Give it back to the rightful owners and destroy and copies that have been made.
It's not property. It's information. The two are different, and claiming that they should be treated the same way just confuses issue. After all, there are plenty of good reasons for forcibly tak[ing] information (your words) from corporations and individuals. For example: forcing pharmaceuticals to tell you side effects of their medication, or truth in advertising laws.
That being said, this is not the best way to go about informing the public. The ISPs should have to make it clear what services are available where. However, since the ISPs have received government cash, they should comply with government requests regarding relevant information, and that information should be made public.
And what about Jane Blow who does not want to pay the government to find out that information? What choice does she have?
To face the consequences of not paying tax.
Actually, what should be done is that the information should be destroyed, those who were negatively impacted by the action should be compensated, and the public should be refunded the money that was spent on the project. All at the expense of the rest of the FCC budget (which should also be eliminated).
Why destroy the information? It's been collected, money's been spent, so why not use it?
Fair enough, keep trade secrets a secret. That's reasonable. But how on earth do you spin broadband penetration into being a trade secret? They just don't want people to know how much money's been squandered.
Proportion, fair enough. But we do have to let them know that we notice the small things. If they get into the habit of keeping trivial data from the public with no valid reason, then it's easier for them to keep the important stuff.
Get upset when people are locked up without seeing a laywer, or when judges are bribed, or kittens are murdered.
Who's to say I don't? However, just because the big issues are important doesn't mean that the smaller issues aren't.
Getting indignant over this just makes you look like a zealot.
I'm not indignant, just annoyed. It's up to the public to make sure the government does what we want it to. For the record, I'm actually a Canadian, so your metrics don't phase me in the least. It's the principle behind the matter that bothers me, especially given Harper's tendency to follow suit with the American groupthink.
Umm, I think his point is that they're embarrassed to release this data, because it shows just how far behind the rest of the world they are. He's speculating, but he does have a good point. And let's not fool ourselves, the old metric was a joke and even then/b? the USA didn't always measure up on the global scale.
Perhaps it's just my political cynicism showing through, but I personally doubt he'll keep many of his promises, except the really big ones that the news will pick up on. And don't count on a bureaucracy of censors and critics enacting any sort of self improvement. And let's be honest, that's what the FCC is.
I'm calling strawman. People are being at best misinformed, at worst outright lied to with the current classification data. You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data? I say for the ability to make an informed decision. More importantly though, why do they feel the need to keep this information private?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but I'm gonna require some links or some proof before I believe that.
So suck it up. If it really bothers you that freaking much, move. I live with a smelly mountain of garbage in my back yard, and they're gonna keep the damn thing open even longer (at least if city council gets its way). You NIMBY types piss me the hell off, because you only worry about the negative consequences that could affect you, rather than the benefits that everyone, including you, will receive.
Well, when your cause has to deal with 50 years of ignorance, paranoia, FUD, and hysteria, you tell me just how sarcastic you're feeling that day.
Probably, but good luck finding the paper trail. As for TPB, it'll just migrate. There's enough countries who aren't exactly friendly to US copyright that are chock full of people willing to run Pirate Bay servers.
Look. These updates are not mandatory. My Wii currently is not connected to the internet and doing just fine. Even when it is, you have to set it up to install updates automatically. You should have known that by hacking a proprietary system that further updates would probably screw over your hack. Just be glad you didn't get bricked. Caveat emptor, my friend.
English is very complicated, take a look at the many meanings of free.
Of course, building a bridge across the chasm is more reliable and achieves the same results.
Below a certain age, x, corporal punishment is useless, because the brain cannot properly make the connection between cause and effect. After a different age, y, corporal punishment is useless, because it does not change the logic that led to the original offense. However, between x and y, corporal punishment can be very useful. When the brain understand cause and effect, pain is very effective and creating the cause-effect link that leads to avoiding said behaviour.
Now, I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I offer to you my situation. At a young age, a spanking was all I understood. After a while, it became that spankings were for the extreme offenses, and being sent to kneel/stand in a corner was for the rest. Then, after that, it hit the point where punishments were removal of privileges and groundings, or else an addition of chores to do. Now, they can't punish me: only the law can. At different stages of development, I understood different things. At a young age, pain is the only possible negative consequence. Later, removal of certain freedoms. Then, removal of different freedoms. The point is, spanking is a perfectly acceptable consequence, granted that you know your child well enough to know whether or not it will work.
Yeah, well I get 1.32110328 × 10^-22 smoots to the barn.
And if 640 KB isn't enough RAM, just install more. A hassle, yeah, but better than not having working software.
- Buy software.
- Install software.
- Get frustrated.
- Crack software.
you'll soon start to cut out steps 2 and 3, and then just cut out step 1.These aren't sales figures. This is just figuring out how many people in a given area have a certain type of line. And I'd love to complain, but I doubt they give a rat's ass about some kid in Ottawa.
Then how should it be funded? People are selfish, stupid, and short sighted. It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it. You know damn well that there are very few people who'll part with their paycheck without immediately getting something for it. The government may damn well be evil, but it's a necessary evil.
And how do you propose said private organization get at this "private" information (your words, used further up the discussion list)? Surely the companies won't willingly give this information up to a private organization unless there's something in it for them. That usually means money, and large amounts of it, which create a very high barrier to entry for such an organization. That or else government legislation. Oh wait, that's what the FCC is doing.
No, you've asserted that the status quo is wrong. It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it. You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond.
Of course, my arguments are mostly meaningless to you, since you seem to have major issues with the existence of a government that is empowered to tax people and use force to ensure compliance.
That being said, this is not the best way to go about informing the public. The ISPs should have to make it clear what services are available where. However, since the ISPs have received government cash, they should comply with government requests regarding relevant information, and that information should be made public.
Fair enough, keep trade secrets a secret. That's reasonable. But how on earth do you spin broadband penetration into being a trade secret? They just don't want people to know how much money's been squandered.
Umm, I think his point is that they're embarrassed to release this data, because it shows just how far behind the rest of the world they are. He's speculating, but he does have a good point. And let's not fool ourselves, the old metric was a joke and even then/b? the USA didn't always measure up on the global scale.
Perhaps it's just my political cynicism showing through, but I personally doubt he'll keep many of his promises, except the really big ones that the news will pick up on. And don't count on a bureaucracy of censors and critics enacting any sort of self improvement. And let's be honest, that's what the FCC is.
I'm calling strawman. People are being at best misinformed, at worst outright lied to with the current classification data. You ask why should they give Joe Blow the data? I say for the ability to make an informed decision. More importantly though, why do they feel the need to keep this information private?
This is on /. because it's a tech issue, namely domain names. But otherwise, yeah, you're right, this is a non-issue.