81–89 of 89 posts
The following link will take you to an EFF page. You can enter your address and get the contact info for your Congress members. It also lets you email them automatically about the other version of this bill, Protect IP, which is just as bad. https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?...
http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/7509-H-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, if anyone advocates more test coverage, we should automatically assume they want 100% quickcheck-like coverage testing all possible occurrences including power outages, network cables being unplugged, etc. What nonsense! How could anyone get work done in a place like that? Or, to use a political example, if anyone advocates more regulation of X, it's incumbent on them to explicitly explain they aren't actu…
"More test coverage" isn't actionable, and if you try to act on it then you'll make stupid tests that don't help, waste effort, and hinder later refactoring efforts. "I'm worried about the foo module, do we have test coverage for this type of failure" is reasonable. And I'd similarly pile on anyone who asked for quote "more regulation" without specifying so much as an industry and type of behavior to be regulated.
Note to self: don't hire pedantic employees who interpret my statements in the most unreasonable way possible just to prove a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are arguing against a straw man. Cheez wasn't advocating taking all power from the government, just "most". Applying the principle of charity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity ) to cheez's remarks, one would assume that preventing violence is not one of the powers he advocated taking from the government.
Suppose the government only lost the power to regulate the telecom industry. In this case, the gatekeepers could do whatever they wanted regarding telecom policy without any fear of legal pushback, instead of having to at least consider their small and manageable fear. If you don't like what they do and there is no framework for making your voice heard on this particular issue, what options do you have? Try to start…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One solution is term limits on Congress. Unfortunately, Congress votes on the bills and amendments, so it's not happening.
We have term limits in California and there is absolutely no sign that it has led to better legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it any more reasonable to suggest that it's possible to change the incentives than to suggest we can find uncorruptible politicians? I don't think that this systemic view aligns with the campaign-finance-reform argument argument at all; the people who want money out of politics regard money itself as the root cause of the problem, but neglects to address the real underlying incentives that money - merely a…
Well, here in the real world, there was a Citizen's United decision in 2009, and there was record-setting advertising spending from industry groups in 2010. In a midterm election. Noone's claiming they have a perfect system, I'd be satisfied if we stopped sliding backwards.
What was wrong with the Citizen's United decision? What's wrong with high advertising spending?
Are you implying that voters are really so easily influenced by the mere volume as advertising that advertising alone is the overriding determinant of electoral success? If that's your point, isn't it actually an indictment of democracy itself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it any more reasonable to suggest that it's possible to change the incentives than to suggest we can find uncorruptible politicians? I don't think that this systemic view aligns with the campaign-finance-reform argument argument at all; the people who want money out of politics regard money itself as the root cause of the problem, but neglects to address the real underlying incentives that money - merely a…
It's a good question; perhaps we can't. I think it's worth thinking about and considering if we really can't do anything to reduce likelihood or magnitude of corruption, though. The founding fathers spent a decent amount of time thinking about it in their own historical context, rather than leaving it purely to a trust that voters will punish politicians who behave badly. For example, the U.S. Constitution has writte…
Our modern trend toward increasing political centralization and removal of constraints on power is what's making corruption so lucrative and effective: if you build it, they will come.
Many of those who are most vigorously agitating for campaign finance reform want a strong and centralized federal government that isn't influenced by interests that compete with their own. But you can't have your cake and eat it too: if that's what you order, it's coming with a side of corruption (and a mixed metaphor fresh out of the blender).