Frankly, it's going to take repeated and blatant abuses of this law to get it registered into the public consciousness. It needs to be repealed and hopefully either rewritten or just scrapped altogether.
But it won't happen until the average Joe starts feeling the pain.
As a newly minted 40yr old, I can pretty well assume Social Security won't exist for me when I retire; unless some pretty radical changes are made.
Much of this discussion has focused on increasing the workforce to offset the increasing retirees. That seems like a plan destined to failure since eventually we'll need even more workers to cover the benefits for the retirements of the newly expanded workforce.
How about changing Social Security to be an 'insurance' program instead? We all pay in as we currently do and only those who qualify (less than $X,000 per year retirement income) end up getting payments out of it. Life Insurance companies seem to manage payment rates to payout rates pretty well. Can't we do the same thing for Soc. Security?
It would seem to vastly reduce the number of payouts while keeping the inputs much the same. Isn't that the only way to truly fix the system?
Most, if not all, ISPs received significant government money in order to build the networks. They did not finance it themselves. In return for building it, they were granted a regulated monopoly over service to guarantee income.
The infrastructure 'lines' are most definitely on public rights of way.
It may be fairly argued that the FCC doesn't have this jurisdiction.
But somebody needs to have it and enforce it. Mike touches on the most important remedial factor and that is lack of competition at the micro-local level. Without that, the enforcement must happen from the government.
But making sure an ISP provides equal and fair access to its network for things its own customers request is not something we should have to debate. Imagine if the contractor who paved the roads, also had a financial stake in certain business and made sure the roads to that business were significantly better. Or worse, deliberately downgraded roads to other businesses.
It's simply not acceptable for a content provider to also be the service provider without proper separation and regulation of the actions of such combined entities.
Based on this definition, other things that violate the constitution:
Social Security
Medicare
The Hyde Amendment banning federal funds for abortion
3 things you can't say you're against and get away with it politically.
Some things are worth while even though they don't pass the constitutional test as they better the nation as a whole. That probably means they *should* be in the Constitution, but given today's 'just say no' climate of GOP objection to everything, you'd never get anything of that magnitude through. (and for the record, the Hyde Amendment is something I oppose strongly - if a procedure is *legal* it should be covered, period.)
to be fair, if NetFlix and RedBox signed a 'delay 28 days' deal WITHOUT the guarantee that nobody else would have the movies either is really really stupid of them.
I love this. If we should pay artists when the value of previously created works go up, then they should likewise pay the owners of the artwork when the value of it goes down.
So since I can create unlimited copies of my CDs, the value of the CDs is now effectively zero. I await full reimbursement for my media collection from the RIAA.
And I dearly hope this is actually an April Fools joke...
I send a letter to a friend. The process for transferring the letter from mail carrier to post office involves making a copy of the letter. Likewise for each separate post office the letter passes through a copy is made and stored for some amount of time before being destroyed.
After the original is delivered to the final destination, the sender loses the 4th amendment protections present in transit and the recipient gains them for the possessed letter.
What about all those copies that exist along the way?
It seems to me this pretty well replicates the digital process of sending an email. Would those physical copies be protected?
The argument is not that 'free' will win over 'paid'. It depends on what you can get for your money. If the 'free' content is as good as the paid sources, it will survive. If 'free' becomes a 20" water main of information, it will be useful to pay someone to filter that a bit to useful volumes.
As Mike always points out, it's not the content, but the value being provided that deserves compensation.
The changes coming are that before the internet, content had a value because just getting it had a significant cost, now getting the information has little if any cost. Getting 'useful' information is a different story and that's where the money will be made. Though less money than in the past. The difference may be made up in a much wider possible audience though.
This is my question too. How the hell do you go from "Um, I'm sorry, we planted real explosives in this guy's luggage without him knowing" to "he's a terrorist with a bomb, arrest him".
Somewhere in the chain is a massive misunderstanding that borders on criminal negligence.
it isn't Mgmt's 'fault', but it is there responsibility to provide an adequate viewing environment. If people are being disruptive to other's enjoyment of the movie, the theater would do well to listen to complaints lest they lose even more customers.
What if I produce my own fuel? i.e. solar panels As we move towards electric vehicles this will become much more prevalent and the 'tax' will dry up more than it is already.
Tax based on the usage of the vehicle and the impact it has (size).
What if the tax for roadway maintenance is different than the tax for general electric usage? How do you separate them when it all comes out of the same electrical spigot?
.
The best solution is still the odometer. It accurately measures the distance traveled by the vehicle. That is the burden the vehicle placed on the roadways and what any tax on it's 'usage' should be based on. Variability by vehicle type is reasonable to account for different vehicle sizes.
.
The use of 'fuel' to determine the 'cost' means that a tractor trailer powered by my own solar panels at home would pay zero tax while having a large impact on the roadway. Tax the usage not the 'efficiency' of the vehicle.
Tuesday, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, reported that Hannity's coverage of last week's Michelle Bachmann 'Press (cough Rally cough) Conference' blatantly used archived footage of Glenn Beck's 9/12 march and claimed it was live coverage showing 40,000+ people attending. OOPS
So Fox News is once again caught FALSIFYING it's coverage to hype the message it wants to spread.
While I'll agree there are many fanatics on both sides, to me it just seems like the Dems/libs seem to be based a lot more in actual facts and substance.
"Why can a Republican not use the liberal tactics?"
The the substance of the attacks and manner of attacks prevent Republicans from doing so.
First, Democrats attacked Bush on actual issues and facts (and largely have been proven right as information dribbled out). GOP is literally making stuff up to scare the crap out of people so they won't be smashed into oblivion in 10 years when people realize that national single payer health care is a very good thing. Much like Medicare which Republicans said would end our medical system as we know it. Funny we still have one and Medicare is pretty dang popular. Why should we listen to them now with the same old rants let alone fabrications?
These are the tactics the GOP uses, not actual arguments based on facts. There was an episode of Bill Maher's show recently that had fmr Sen. Bill Frist (a doctor) on talking about the H1N1 vaccine. It was a very telling scene when Frist says, "For once you're the crazy person and I've got facts on my side" because Maher has questions about whether *any* vaccine is a good idea. The implication being that the GOP is usually spouting craziness in the face of facts.
But please provide some evidence for your point of view...that you seem to haven't done yet...
On the post: Homeland Security Works For Disney Now? Announces Shut Down Of Movie Sites At Disney
Re: PORN!
Will be downright entertaining watching the DoJ explain why *those* companies don't deserve protection.
On the post: Twitter Taking Down Tweets Over Bogus DMCA Claims
Good
But it won't happen until the average Joe starts feeling the pain.
On the post: An Answer To The Impending Bankruptcy Of Social Security: An Immigration Brain Gain
A different approach
Much of this discussion has focused on increasing the workforce to offset the increasing retirees. That seems like a plan destined to failure since eventually we'll need even more workers to cover the benefits for the retirements of the newly expanded workforce.
How about changing Social Security to be an 'insurance' program instead? We all pay in as we currently do and only those who qualify (less than $X,000 per year retirement income) end up getting payments out of it. Life Insurance companies seem to manage payment rates to payout rates pretty well. Can't we do the same thing for Soc. Security?
It would seem to vastly reduce the number of payouts while keeping the inputs much the same. Isn't that the only way to truly fix the system?
On the post: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
Re: Re: Legislation needed
The infrastructure 'lines' are most definitely on public rights of way.
On the post: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
Legislation needed
But somebody needs to have it and enforce it. Mike touches on the most important remedial factor and that is lack of competition at the micro-local level. Without that, the enforcement must happen from the government.
But making sure an ISP provides equal and fair access to its network for things its own customers request is not something we should have to debate. Imagine if the contractor who paved the roads, also had a financial stake in certain business and made sure the roads to that business were significantly better. Or worse, deliberately downgraded roads to other businesses.
It's simply not acceptable for a content provider to also be the service provider without proper separation and regulation of the actions of such combined entities.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does this happen?
Social Security
Medicare
The Hyde Amendment banning federal funds for abortion
3 things you can't say you're against and get away with it politically.
Some things are worth while even though they don't pass the constitutional test as they better the nation as a whole. That probably means they *should* be in the Constitution, but given today's 'just say no' climate of GOP objection to everything, you'd never get anything of that magnitude through. (and for the record, the Hyde Amendment is something I oppose strongly - if a procedure is *legal* it should be covered, period.)
On the post: Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix
Re: Saw this today...
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
So since I can create unlimited copies of my CDs, the value of the CDs is now effectively zero. I await full reimbursement for my media collection from the RIAA.
And I dearly hope this is actually an April Fools joke...
On the post: Court Effectively Says No 4th Amendment Protection To Copies Of Emails
Plausible real world scenario
After the original is delivered to the final destination, the sender loses the 4th amendment protections present in transit and the recipient gains them for the possessed letter.
What about all those copies that exist along the way?
It seems to me this pretty well replicates the digital process of sending an email. Would those physical copies be protected?
On the post: Free Is Not An Aberration; It's Basic Economics
Re: YES and free is good
As Mike always points out, it's not the content, but the value being provided that deserves compensation.
The changes coming are that before the internet, content had a value because just getting it had a significant cost, now getting the information has little if any cost. Getting 'useful' information is a different story and that's where the money will be made. Though less money than in the past. The difference may be made up in a much wider possible audience though.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Re:
However, they still would have massively screwed it up regardless.
On the post: Slovakian Law Enforcement Secretly Planted Explosives On Travelers
Re:
Somewhere in the chain is a massive misunderstanding that borders on criminal negligence.
On the post: Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
doh! their
On the post: Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's just basic customer management skills.
On the post: Netherlands The Latest To Propose Mileage Tax That Requires GPS For Tracking Driving
Re: Re: oops
Tax based on the usage of the vehicle and the impact it has (size).
On the post: Netherlands The Latest To Propose Mileage Tax That Requires GPS For Tracking Driving
Re: Re: electric cars
.
The best solution is still the odometer. It accurately measures the distance traveled by the vehicle. That is the burden the vehicle placed on the roadways and what any tax on it's 'usage' should be based on. Variability by vehicle type is reasonable to account for different vehicle sizes.
.
The use of 'fuel' to determine the 'cost' means that a tractor trailer powered by my own solar panels at home would pay zero tax while having a large impact on the roadway. Tax the usage not the 'efficiency' of the vehicle.
On the post: Video Game Developers Say That Piracy Really Isn't A Big Threat To Business
Adapting
On the post: Is Murdoch's Move Against Google Really About Twitter And Facebook?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: au contraire
Tuesday, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, reported that Hannity's coverage of last week's Michelle Bachmann 'Press (cough Rally cough) Conference' blatantly used archived footage of Glenn Beck's 9/12 march and claimed it was live coverage showing 40,000+ people attending. OOPS
So Fox News is once again caught FALSIFYING it's coverage to hype the message it wants to spread.
On the post: Is Murdoch's Move Against Google Really About Twitter And Facebook?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: au contraire
On the post: Is Murdoch's Move Against Google Really About Twitter And Facebook?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: au contraire
The the substance of the attacks and manner of attacks prevent Republicans from doing so.
First, Democrats attacked Bush on actual issues and facts (and largely have been proven right as information dribbled out). GOP is literally making stuff up to scare the crap out of people so they won't be smashed into oblivion in 10 years when people realize that national single payer health care is a very good thing. Much like Medicare which Republicans said would end our medical system as we know it. Funny we still have one and Medicare is pretty dang popular. Why should we listen to them now with the same old rants let alone fabrications?
Secondly, google "DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com"
or see this link:
http://gawker.com/5400754/glenn-beck-meets-internet-loses
These are the tactics the GOP uses, not actual arguments based on facts. There was an episode of Bill Maher's show recently that had fmr Sen. Bill Frist (a doctor) on talking about the H1N1 vaccine. It was a very telling scene when Frist says, "For once you're the crazy person and I've got facts on my side" because Maher has questions about whether *any* vaccine is a good idea. The implication being that the GOP is usually spouting craziness in the face of facts.
But please provide some evidence for your point of view...that you seem to haven't done yet...
Next >>