I heard a saying once that has guided me well in my life and I think that it might serve the various police forces around this country, and the Trump administration as well.
"If you go about your day and run into an asshole, such is life. If you go about your day and everyone you run into is an asshole, then chances are, you're the asshole."
While I commend the overall goal of this Superpac. I am curious as to why it's getting so much coverage on Techdirt yet Wolfpac (Which aims to pass an constitutional amendment to remove corporate person-hood, overturn Citizens United and remove money from politics as much as possible through the method of a Convention of the States) hasn't gotten a peep. IMHO, Wolfpac (Which isn't a SuperPac) would do far more good than this Superpac in creating the changes we want to see. I am dubious that creating a Superpac will do much of anything to curtail Superpacs. What we need is a constitutional amendment passed at the state level where real effect can still be obtained.
That depends, does the mechanic make you sign a non-compete?
I think that trying to equate a one time service with a mechanic with a corporations ability to fire someone based upon criticism of the corporations actions is a bit narrow minded not broad.
For one, a mechanic is an employee of the corporation/shop for which she or he works for. which is in turn employed by the consumer for the labor in which mechanic provides. Even if the mechanic owns the shop, this is still the case.
The consumer has a right to pick and choose what company gets their business as he or she pleases, and should the mechanic not perform his/her duty satisfactorily, both the company and the consumer have a right to utilize a different source of labor.
However, if the mechanic is unhappy with the way the shop of which they are employed is run and vents her/his frustrations to a social media outlet but otherwise does the work for which he/she is under contract to perform, The company has no legal footing in which to fire said employee.
(Except for 'Right to Work' states such as Texas where the company can fire you for no reason at all. But that a different debate altogether)
They should instead seek to hear the employees grievances and work with the employee to remedy them in order to create a happier workforce and thus a happier consumer base. As happy workers tend be harder workers and harder workers generally make for happier customers.
I think the situation should be seen more in the following light.
I think it would be difficult if not impossible to deny that our government is now under a decent bit of control from corporations. They have used the powers of government to push corporate agenda even at the detriment of the consumer and environment. It can only be concluded that with each passing day our government becomes more and more of a proxy for corporate rule. However unlike our government, corporations are not necessarily beholden to the constitution or The Bill of Rights. If our government is to continue down this path of becoming (IMHO) more and more of a puppet to corporate interests then shouldn't we strive to make those corporations beholden to the same documents which guarantee our civil liberties while we still have time do to so?
Otherwise, as our government becomes more marginalized by the corporate agenda, so to will our civil liberties. That is, unless we can begin to create laws to keep that from happening.
I for one think that we're getting exactly the transparency that was promised. The lies of this administration are more transparent than any previous administration before it. Job well done Obama! You're practically living in a glass house now!
Now someone hand me that rock...
"[...]I know we must continue to work to change the perception that IP crime is risk-free and victimless through aggressive criminal enforcement of laws designed to protect the American public and ensure the quality of products reaching consumers.[...]"
So in other words he wants to show the American public that "IP crime" isn't risk-free and victimless by creating risk and manufacturing victims by enforcing terribly written IP Laws. Then turn around and say its to protect the public?
I am beginning to wonder just how ludicrous the law has to be before the whole "We have to protect the public" excuse begins to fall apart.
This one seems to be the least justifiable so far. Especially when corporation such as Monsanto are clearly working against the public interest in their crusade against farmers who don't use their product by using "IP law" to sue them into the proverbial dirt when wind driven cross pollination of Round-Up Ready product contaminates some of the crops belonging to a farmer who uses more traditional methods of growing crops.
Or the fact that RIAA and MPAA have notoriously worked against the public interest in their aggressive attacks on technology.
You know what the public is interested in? It's not protecting corporations or even an individuals Intellectual Property.
The public is interested in innovation, they want the coolest new gadget and they want it to work. They could care less about who holds what patent on the button they use to turn it on.
The public is interested in paying less for non-scarce goods. Data is practically free to create and redistribute ad-infinitum. There is NO reason to buy a physical album of 16 songs (some of which you may not like) for $20, when one can obtain the same songs for less. That is to say, unless there is an added value in it for you, such as the cover art, or a chance to have dinner with the musicians who made the album.
The public is interested in service as opposed to goods. In this harsh economic reality in which we live, people want to feel like there getting some a bit extra with their purchase. The realize that money is a scarce good with limited buying potential. Why spend that money on an abundant good (that is being way over priced and heavily regulated when obtained through legal channels) when one can both obtain that same good for free elsewhere, and spend ones money on something that is equally scarce as money, such as a once in a lifetime experience or a special album of ones favorite band that includes some sort of scarce good with it?
But most of all, the public is interested in not being hassled. They don't want to have to feel like they have to look over their proverbial shoulder every time they download something. They definitely don't want to have to stop getting cool innovative technology because of some absurd patent that manages to patent something that is common sense.
NONE of these interests are helped by stronger enforcement of IP law and all of them are hurt by it.
So please Mr.Cole, stop pretending you serve the interest of the public and be honest and say you serve the short sighted goals of childish corporations who never learned to share and who in all honesty probably hate the public, because they sure as hell hate the public domain.
I've noticed that many of you are conflating the idea of usage over time (amount of traffic sent over a network over a specified time period, ie A Month) which we'll call bandwidth, with the idea of usage at a specific time (the amount of traffic on a network at any given second.)which we'll call latencywidth (Yes, that is a completely made up term, but it is to distinguish between the two very different measurements).
There is no real limit to the amount of bandwidth that can be transfered, only a limit to the amount of latencywidth that can be on the network at a specified time and of course different parts of the network can handle different amounts of latency.
In order to paint a picture of how a network actually handles bandwidth it is helpful to think of a map full of infinitely long (bandwidth) lines that are finitely wide (latencywidth). Due to the finite width of the line, a particular section of that line or road can only handle a limited amount of data/cars at a given moment, however there is no real limit to amount of data/cars that can pass over that particular spot over a period of time.
Usage caps, limit the amount of traffic you can use over time not at a specific time therefore imposing usage over time limits does not impede network congestion but rather impedes network usefulness.
To drive home this fact let us consider the averages for commonly used online services.
Viewing a webpage: 20KB - 5MB (dependent on amount of images, quality of images, etc)
Sending and receiving txt only email over web interface: ~.2MB (with no attachments)
Downloading a three-minute song:
~2-5MB (depending on encoding and quality)
Watching a video on youtube encoded at 360p: ~1MB/minute
Watching a 2hr, streaming movie on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. ~2GB @ 640x480 resolution.
Listening to online streaming music or podcast: ~56MB/hour assuming 128 Kb/s stream rate.
Playing online games (xbox, playstation, wow) ~10MB/Hour (up and down combined)
Now, due to the nature of our world, where the majority of people sleep at night, work during the hours of 9am-5pm, get home between the hours of 6pm and 7pm and begin their internet usage around said time. You will likely still see network congestion during these times, if its a neighborhood with a lot of kids in it you can expect to see even more congestion.
With the new cap in place you MAY see less congestion but only because people will become more conservative with what they spend their bandwidth allowance on. Which means they will likely cut out the big bandwidth expenses such as youtube, netflix, etc.
So sure, you MAY see your latency decrease, but at the cost of not being able to use the less congested network for what you want.
But, honestly I think a usage cap will do very little if nothing to limit the amount of network congestion during the times that it's a problem, just as putting a mileage cap on driving will do very little to nothing on morning and evening traffic.
The only way to combat congestion is to upgrade those parts experiencing it, but as pointed out in this post. Congestion is not the problem.... competition is.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GnSThI.
The World is a mirror
I heard a saying once that has guided me well in my life and I think that it might serve the various police forces around this country, and the Trump administration as well.
"If you go about your day and run into an asshole, such is life. If you go about your day and everyone you run into is an asshole, then chances are, you're the asshole."
Re:
Precisely what I thought.
Curious.
While I commend the overall goal of this Superpac. I am curious as to why it's getting so much coverage on Techdirt yet Wolfpac (Which aims to pass an constitutional amendment to remove corporate person-hood, overturn Citizens United and remove money from politics as much as possible through the method of a Convention of the States) hasn't gotten a peep. IMHO, Wolfpac (Which isn't a SuperPac) would do far more good than this Superpac in creating the changes we want to see. I am dubious that creating a Superpac will do much of anything to curtail Superpacs. What we need is a constitutional amendment passed at the state level where real effect can still be obtained.
Heh
It's like the old adage goes, "The only thing a thief hates is another thief". Well, that and greater regulations and oversight on their thieving.
Re: Re: So What should be the options?
That depends, does the mechanic make you sign a non-compete?
I think that trying to equate a one time service with a mechanic with a corporations ability to fire someone based upon criticism of the corporations actions is a bit narrow minded not broad.
For one, a mechanic is an employee of the corporation/shop for which she or he works for. which is in turn employed by the consumer for the labor in which mechanic provides. Even if the mechanic owns the shop, this is still the case.
The consumer has a right to pick and choose what company gets their business as he or she pleases, and should the mechanic not perform his/her duty satisfactorily, both the company and the consumer have a right to utilize a different source of labor.
However, if the mechanic is unhappy with the way the shop of which they are employed is run and vents her/his frustrations to a social media outlet but otherwise does the work for which he/she is under contract to perform, The company has no legal footing in which to fire said employee.
(Except for 'Right to Work' states such as Texas where the company can fire you for no reason at all. But that a different debate altogether)
They should instead seek to hear the employees grievances and work with the employee to remedy them in order to create a happier workforce and thus a happier consumer base. As happy workers tend be harder workers and harder workers generally make for happier customers.
I think the situation should be seen more in the following light.
I think it would be difficult if not impossible to deny that our government is now under a decent bit of control from corporations. They have used the powers of government to push corporate agenda even at the detriment of the consumer and environment. It can only be concluded that with each passing day our government becomes more and more of a proxy for corporate rule. However unlike our government, corporations are not necessarily beholden to the constitution or The Bill of Rights. If our government is to continue down this path of becoming (IMHO) more and more of a puppet to corporate interests then shouldn't we strive to make those corporations beholden to the same documents which guarantee our civil liberties while we still have time do to so?
Otherwise, as our government becomes more marginalized by the corporate agenda, so to will our civil liberties. That is, unless we can begin to create laws to keep that from happening.
Just my two cents worth.
Meanwhile, the Bush family are contacting the Bin Laden's to send their condolences.
pfft
I for one think that we're getting exactly the transparency that was promised. The lies of this administration are more transparent than any previous administration before it. Job well done Obama! You're practically living in a glass house now!
Now someone hand me that rock...
IP Victimization...
"[...]I know we must continue to work to change the perception that IP crime is risk-free and victimless through aggressive criminal enforcement of laws designed to protect the American public and ensure the quality of products reaching consumers.[...]"
So in other words he wants to show the American public that "IP crime" isn't risk-free and victimless by creating risk and manufacturing victims by enforcing terribly written IP Laws. Then turn around and say its to protect the public?
I am beginning to wonder just how ludicrous the law has to be before the whole "We have to protect the public" excuse begins to fall apart.
This one seems to be the least justifiable so far. Especially when corporation such as Monsanto are clearly working against the public interest in their crusade against farmers who don't use their product by using "IP law" to sue them into the proverbial dirt when wind driven cross pollination of Round-Up Ready product contaminates some of the crops belonging to a farmer who uses more traditional methods of growing crops.
Or the fact that RIAA and MPAA have notoriously worked against the public interest in their aggressive attacks on technology.
You know what the public is interested in? It's not protecting corporations or even an individuals Intellectual Property.
The public is interested in innovation, they want the coolest new gadget and they want it to work. They could care less about who holds what patent on the button they use to turn it on.
The public is interested in paying less for non-scarce goods. Data is practically free to create and redistribute ad-infinitum. There is NO reason to buy a physical album of 16 songs (some of which you may not like) for $20, when one can obtain the same songs for less. That is to say, unless there is an added value in it for you, such as the cover art, or a chance to have dinner with the musicians who made the album.
The public is interested in service as opposed to goods. In this harsh economic reality in which we live, people want to feel like there getting some a bit extra with their purchase. The realize that money is a scarce good with limited buying potential. Why spend that money on an abundant good (that is being way over priced and heavily regulated when obtained through legal channels) when one can both obtain that same good for free elsewhere, and spend ones money on something that is equally scarce as money, such as a once in a lifetime experience or a special album of ones favorite band that includes some sort of scarce good with it?
But most of all, the public is interested in not being hassled. They don't want to have to feel like they have to look over their proverbial shoulder every time they download something. They definitely don't want to have to stop getting cool innovative technology because of some absurd patent that manages to patent something that is common sense.
NONE of these interests are helped by stronger enforcement of IP law and all of them are hurt by it.
So please Mr.Cole, stop pretending you serve the interest of the public and be honest and say you serve the short sighted goals of childish corporations who never learned to share and who in all honesty probably hate the public, because they sure as hell hate the public domain.
Re: Re:
Brainwashing....
Re: Then I'll get my own patent too.
Don't forget to copyright demented rants also so you can get them for public performance of copyrighted material as well!
I've noticed that many of you are conflating the idea of usage over time (amount of traffic sent over a network over a specified time period, ie A Month) which we'll call bandwidth, with the idea of usage at a specific time (the amount of traffic on a network at any given second.)which we'll call latencywidth (Yes, that is a completely made up term, but it is to distinguish between the two very different measurements).
There is no real limit to the amount of bandwidth that can be transfered, only a limit to the amount of latencywidth that can be on the network at a specified time and of course different parts of the network can handle different amounts of latency.
In order to paint a picture of how a network actually handles bandwidth it is helpful to think of a map full of infinitely long (bandwidth) lines that are finitely wide (latencywidth). Due to the finite width of the line, a particular section of that line or road can only handle a limited amount of data/cars at a given moment, however there is no real limit to amount of data/cars that can pass over that particular spot over a period of time.
Usage caps, limit the amount of traffic you can use over time not at a specific time therefore imposing usage over time limits does not impede network congestion but rather impedes network usefulness.
To drive home this fact let us consider the averages for commonly used online services.
Viewing a webpage: 20KB - 5MB (dependent on amount of images, quality of images, etc)
Sending and receiving txt only email over web interface: ~.2MB (with no attachments)
Downloading a three-minute song:
~2-5MB (depending on encoding and quality)
Watching a video on youtube encoded at 360p: ~1MB/minute
Watching a 2hr, streaming movie on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. ~2GB @ 640x480 resolution.
Listening to online streaming music or podcast: ~56MB/hour assuming 128 Kb/s stream rate.
Playing online games (xbox, playstation, wow) ~10MB/Hour (up and down combined)
Now, due to the nature of our world, where the majority of people sleep at night, work during the hours of 9am-5pm, get home between the hours of 6pm and 7pm and begin their internet usage around said time. You will likely still see network congestion during these times, if its a neighborhood with a lot of kids in it you can expect to see even more congestion.
With the new cap in place you MAY see less congestion but only because people will become more conservative with what they spend their bandwidth allowance on. Which means they will likely cut out the big bandwidth expenses such as youtube, netflix, etc.
So sure, you MAY see your latency decrease, but at the cost of not being able to use the less congested network for what you want.
But, honestly I think a usage cap will do very little if nothing to limit the amount of network congestion during the times that it's a problem, just as putting a mileage cap on driving will do very little to nothing on morning and evening traffic.
The only way to combat congestion is to upgrade those parts experiencing it, but as pointed out in this post. Congestion is not the problem.... competition is.