That was immediately my thought: so, Rep. Rogers, you are saying that if the sweaty creep next door is peeking in your daughter's window while she is undressing but she is unaware of it, her privacy has not been violated?
For half the 20th C, newspapers admitted that TV got hot stories out to the people faster, but then trumpeted that they did a better job of covering the story with depth and context. The lag time required to write, print, and deliver were a feature, not a bug.
With the web, they could have had the best of both worlds: get something out immediately (as in the Columbine shootings) and then do a fuller analysis subsequently in the print (and online) editions. But that backwards-looking attitude prevented that happening.
I am somewhat encouraged to note that the Washington Post seems to be avoiding that trap, content-wise. But I don't think they are capitalizing on the potential ad revenue from their mobile edition they way they could be.
If the number of people getting news from the web is 10 times that of newspapers, why aren't newspapers charging more for their web ads? And why aren't there more ads on their web versions? (Heretical question, I know.)
I live in the Washington DC area, and the Washington Post recently improved the mobile version of their content. I wrote the editor and Help Desk both to congratulate them on the improvement, and followed up with a comment that they should actually include one or two ads per screen. We're grownups; we can handle it. I told them I appreciate the writers they have and I want them to continue to be paid. So they should be taking advantage of this revenue stream, especially if the ads there have URLs in them as a convenience to the user and advertiser.
Much as I like the Post's content, I spend 10 minutes max scanning the print version in the morning as I munch my Pop Tart. All my other news consumption is done online. And my wife only reads the Sunday paper. I am seriously considering dropping my print subscription.
@AnonCoward is correct to a point. On any given blog, you are just as likely to get a nutjob with an agenda. But those types rarely build up much of a following. And for those blogs who do build up a large following, well, one man's nutjob is another man's Daily Kos. But it is equally true that most journalists do lousy jobs of reporting on local news and when presented with material from some think tank or organization, they will only read the executive summary and work from that. Bloggers who come at something with a genuine interest and/or point of view are more likely to delve into the details, to report the whole City Council meeting, to be interested in the opposing side because it must be countered. Sometimes "objectivity" just equates to sloppy disinterest.
Note that this was merely one colonel specifically "speaking in a personal capacity". He no more represents the DoD's position than does some mid-level manager in MS get to determine their software strategy.
I'm working with the Navy on IT policy, and I can tell you that any time someone in a meeting edges up to something like trying to control the Internet (in whole or part), they get quickly swatted down.
Having the citizenry regularly vote on legislation is too taxing (no pun intended) because of the unfortunately large scope of government these days. People just don't want to keep up with the myriad details and would be too likely to follow the lead of Oprah or some other celebrity figure.
However, a great alternative would be to have a "sunset" for all laws and regulations: after a certain amount of time (say, 7 years for laws, 3 years for regulations) the law/reg must either be reaffirmed by Congress or allowed to lapse. (I'm not sure whether the President should be allowed to veto a reaffirmed law. Probably he shouldn't). No changes to the law/reg would be allowed as part of the reaffirmation. If Congress wants to change it, they have to let it die and have a completely new law to replace it. This helps reduce the bad effects arising from the Politicians' Syllogism: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." (See: "PATRIOT Act").
Another idea would be to eliminate the seniority system in Congress. Chairmanships should be settled by drawn lots. Horsetrading could take place afterward, perhaps.
Also, the Congressional pension plan should be eliminated entirely. Let the states support their congressional representatives as they each see fit. The compensation retired Congresscritters receives is breathtaking and leads to careerism that allows elected representatives to live in a bubble.
I also believe the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and the selection of Senators returned to the state legislatures. This has a couple of benefits. The first is that it restores a voice for the states in the federal government; senators could no longer pander to the people. (That's the House's job, dang it!). The second is that all the campaign contributions that currently go to Senators would be spread across all the various legislators in the states. This would dilute the power of lobbyists, without eliminating it entirely (because lobbyists can/do play some good and useful roles).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ondigo.
Publish anyway
Why can't the FISC go ahead and publish the opinion itself? Who's going to prosecute them and under what authority?
Re: A new hero is born
That was immediately my thought: so, Rep. Rogers, you are saying that if the sweaty creep next door is peeking in your daughter's window while she is undressing but she is unaware of it, her privacy has not been violated?
What an asshat.
The REAL danger
Ask me who I think can do more real damage to America: terrorists or Congress. Go ahead. Ask me.
automatic copyright?
There is no doubt that the children's original doodles are protected by copyright...
Is that statement true? I thought one had to formally register a copyright request and have it approved for a copyright to legally exist.faster media
For half the 20th C, newspapers admitted that TV got hot stories out to the people faster, but then trumpeted that they did a better job of covering the story with depth and context. The lag time required to write, print, and deliver were a feature, not a bug.
With the web, they could have had the best of both worlds: get something out immediately (as in the Columbine shootings) and then do a fuller analysis subsequently in the print (and online) editions. But that backwards-looking attitude prevented that happening.
I am somewhat encouraged to note that the Washington Post seems to be avoiding that trap, content-wise. But I don't think they are capitalizing on the potential ad revenue from their mobile edition they way they could be.
Whither the ad revenue?
If the number of people getting news from the web is 10 times that of newspapers, why aren't newspapers charging more for their web ads? And why aren't there more ads on their web versions? (Heretical question, I know.)
I live in the Washington DC area, and the Washington Post recently improved the mobile version of their content. I wrote the editor and Help Desk both to congratulate them on the improvement, and followed up with a comment that they should actually include one or two ads per screen. We're grownups; we can handle it. I told them I appreciate the writers they have and I want them to continue to be paid. So they should be taking advantage of this revenue stream, especially if the ads there have URLs in them as a convenience to the user and advertiser.
Much as I like the Post's content, I spend 10 minutes max scanning the print version in the morning as I munch my Pop Tart. All my other news consumption is done online. And my wife only reads the Sunday paper. I am seriously considering dropping my print subscription.
Cranks will out
@AnonCoward is correct to a point. On any given blog, you are just as likely to get a nutjob with an agenda. But those types rarely build up much of a following. And for those blogs who do build up a large following, well, one man's nutjob is another man's Daily Kos. But it is equally true that most journalists do lousy jobs of reporting on local news and when presented with material from some think tank or organization, they will only read the executive summary and work from that. Bloggers who come at something with a genuine interest and/or point of view are more likely to delve into the details, to report the whole City Council meeting, to be interested in the opposing side because it must be countered. Sometimes "objectivity" just equates to sloppy disinterest.
"speaking in a personal capacity"
Note that this was merely one colonel specifically "speaking in a personal capacity". He no more represents the DoD's position than does some mid-level manager in MS get to determine their software strategy.
I'm working with the Navy on IT policy, and I can tell you that any time someone in a meeting edges up to something like trying to control the Internet (in whole or part), they get quickly swatted down.
Hitchhiker's alert
This doesn't make sense since Earthmen are descended from Golgafrinchan telephone disinfectors.
Some other ideas...
Having the citizenry regularly vote on legislation is too taxing (no pun intended) because of the unfortunately large scope of government these days. People just don't want to keep up with the myriad details and would be too likely to follow the lead of Oprah or some other celebrity figure.
However, a great alternative would be to have a "sunset" for all laws and regulations: after a certain amount of time (say, 7 years for laws, 3 years for regulations) the law/reg must either be reaffirmed by Congress or allowed to lapse. (I'm not sure whether the President should be allowed to veto a reaffirmed law. Probably he shouldn't). No changes to the law/reg would be allowed as part of the reaffirmation. If Congress wants to change it, they have to let it die and have a completely new law to replace it. This helps reduce the bad effects arising from the Politicians' Syllogism: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." (See: "PATRIOT Act").
Another idea would be to eliminate the seniority system in Congress. Chairmanships should be settled by drawn lots. Horsetrading could take place afterward, perhaps.
Also, the Congressional pension plan should be eliminated entirely. Let the states support their congressional representatives as they each see fit. The compensation retired Congresscritters receives is breathtaking and leads to careerism that allows elected representatives to live in a bubble.
I also believe the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and the selection of Senators returned to the state legislatures. This has a couple of benefits. The first is that it restores a voice for the states in the federal government; senators could no longer pander to the people. (That's the House's job, dang it!). The second is that all the campaign contributions that currently go to Senators would be spread across all the various legislators in the states. This would dilute the power of lobbyists, without eliminating it entirely (because lobbyists can/do play some good and useful roles).