Because I agree with Obama on about 80% of the key issues, such as tax policy, health care reform. He doesn't seem inclined to start new wars and has actually wound down one war (even if he wound one up at the same time). Because amongst all the candidates on the ballot, I believe he will be the best president. Because I'm not a one issue voter.
I won't begrudge anyone for voting Garry Johnson, but nor will I humor their smugness & pride as they congratulate themselves for bucking the 2 party system while putting down citizens that support major party candidates.
The system needs to be blown up, but it's more effectively done on the state & perhaps congressional level. Were there a middle-of-the-road candidate that put forth a great campaign and advocated for sensible reforms that matched my own instincts, I may well vote for that person. As would millions of others. Alas, that White Knight has been around the corner for a few hundred years, and will be for a few hundred more.
President Obama will get my vote. But he won't get a nickel from me this year, unlike 2008 when I poured in a fair bit. And it's because of this-- lack of transparency, continued obsession with secrecy, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP. Etc. I think there were about 3 times when I said to myself, "now THAT'S the guy I voted for!"
Wouldn't surprise me to see 4 years pass without it happening again.
To be fair, this is the opinion pages, not the reporting pages, but the WSJ is supposed to have a pretty high bar for getting facts right, isn't it? And I would assume that applies to the opinion pages as well.
It's just not true. The WSJ opinion pages are in line with the Washington Times and the very worst of the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. It's as bad as the WSJ news pages are good.
Ars Technica & other sites still don't get the DMCA
Left this on the Ars article. Mostly it's a good article, but nearly every tech apart from Techdirt continues to make this same error. It's a fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
"The notice-and-takedown procedure requires YouTube to leave an allegedly infringing work offline for at least 10 days."
That, quite simply, is false. On a few levels. First of all, YouTube has special deals with the RIAA & MPAA that don't even require them to go through the DMCA process. Second, the DMCA requires YouTube to take down the video OR expose themselves to liability. An idiot in a hurry could've taken one look at the video and made the determination that there was no infringement, therefore no copyright claim, therefore no liability, therefore no reason to take it down.
But in this instance, YouTube is acting as a spineless. Yes, the DMCA allows & even encourages the censoring of speech (political or otherwise) for vindictive purposes under the guise of copyright law and the DMCA needs to be updated to reflect all that we've learned in the past 1.5 decades. But no, the DMCA does NOT require YouTube to take down every video that has had a copyright notice filed against it. That's a misconception most people have, and great tech sites like Ars that repeat it so glibly have only reinforced this incorrect assessment of the law. I hope you can correct the article & avoid making this mistake in the future.
Oh Daily Caller, you really are a special kind of crazy.
Preface by saying... it's a ridiculous system when a political ad is yanked for using 9 seconds of music (that's included in probably 10,000 other videos n YouTube). And whoever at BMG ordered the takedown is likely an idiot and probably a misguided Obama supporter.
But, really? Really? Here's what The Daily Caller wrote:
"But just imagine what they would be saying if Romney’s turnaround book had been published by a multinational conglomerate with ties to Nazi propaganda."
The quote, "Over the last year, I've conducted surveys of the students I've lectured and 90-98% of them, between the ages of 18 and 32, are involved in daily acts of piracy." Really is the problem. We all commit technical copyright violations dozens of times daily. Maybe he's including anyone watching user-uploaded music on YouTube, or copying & pasting several paragraphs of an article (fair use be dammed). Recording something on the TiVo to watch later, or *gasp* borrowing a CD from a friend. Dig deep enough, and I'd be surprised if EVERYONE wasn't committing "piracy" a dozen times a day.
That's a symptom of a broken legal system, it's not a symptom of some deranged culture. The laws are already out of whack with reality, and all ACTA fans want to do is declare by fiat more & more ethical, natural, moral behavior be classified as criminal.
As above, I think it's likely the case that state & local police-- far more numerous than the Feds-- make far more requests for spying on customers. And I'd reckon with far less oversight and much less adherence to the law.
Anyone see 60 minutes last night, the Jack Abramoff encore episode? Makes me wonder HOW MANY Lamar Smith staffers have had job offers from K-Street lobbyists. These congress critters are bought & paid for and they're too stupid to realize it.
Techdirt ate the rest of my post! Regardless, while the collisions with smaller debris may occur with a higher frequency than more massive objects on a per gram basis, all objects will be effected. But if it knocks down debris & satellites in 20 years instead of 100, that may be a very sensible solution to clearing lower earth orbit with minimal impact on operations.
aren't like normal budgets. $80 million (40 tons at $1000/pound) is cheap, really, and pays off by avoiding even one lost satellite. The downside is that EVERY low-earth satellite would be slowed by this debris, leading to shorter lifespans for all low earth satellites. That's because fuel is needed to keep the satellite from slowing too much, and running out of fuel is often the life-limiting factor for satellites. It might be interesting as a 1-off, since there's tons (literally) of uncontrolled space debris largely from the early years of space programs when there was less concern about junk.
If Verizon & others were in a true competitive market, then undoubtedly failing to invest in their network would spell their doom. Alas, at best it's a duopoly. Verizon can charge what they like and dare members to quit. Even with 2 "competitors" (who are now teaming up on related initiatives), there is seldom true competition.
In a monopolistic market, why should Verizon spend money to upgrade their network when they can charge virtually the same amount of money to the same number of people either way? Especially if Comcast & the other cablecos follow suit. And since dozens of corrupt state legislatures have forbid municipal broadband, there are no further threats with the full barrel of regulatory capture.
So Moffett's advice, if heeded, stands a fair chance of being more profitable for Verizon in the long run. With control of both the infrastructure and the government, Verizon and others have little incentive to improve their services. It's a failure of government that we've allowed such a situation to pass.