GeorgiaDon

That's the ONLY reason, huh? It couldn't be the possibility of people voting who don't live in the district, people voting who aren't US citizens or keeping people from voting more than once? I had to prove citizenship and place of residence when I registered to vote. When it comes time to actually vote, if I'm not registered I don't get to vote. Nobody checks my citizenship at the voting station, I've never been asked to show a passport or birth certificate or naturalization documents as that was done in order to get registered in the first place. Once I have been given my ballot, my name is crossed off the list and I can't get another ballot, and neither can anyone else using my name/address. There could be some merit to the idea of proving you still live in the district in which you registered to vote, although if you have moved between registering and the election and you intended to vote in both your old and your new district it would be easy to hang onto your old photo ID. Anyway, all your "reasons" apply equally well (or badly) to voting in the caucus, yet Iowa Republicans apparently do not feel the need to "double check" eligibility or residency at the caucus. Again there appears to be a double standard at play. Personally I don't object to the need for some proof of ID at the polls, and never indicated that I did. I don't have an ideological axe to grind here, I'd see the same double standard if it were Democrats trying to legislate different rules for the general election than what they apply to themselves. On the other hand I asked a straightforward question and got the same old partisan crap answer, followed by the mandatory patronizing insult. Unfortunately SOP from you. I'd suggest you take a step back and look at your own ideology, but I suspect you're so entrenched in your one-sided view of the world that stimulus/response is all you've got left. Sad. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks Fast. I agree with all of what you say here. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks Bill. That helps clarify things. My son doesn't dedicate a PC to this kind of thing, but then I suppose he's risking the time/effort/cost to clean up his machine should it get infected. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Perhaps this is beating a dead horse, but I'd really appreciate it if people could give me a constructive reply to the following question. I assume we can all agree with Bill's comment that SOPA would be unnecessary if the cost to purchase music/movies was less than the cost (in time/effort/money) to download it from various file sharing/torrent/whatever sites. My question is, what is that cost? Even just a ballpark estimate would help me understand the situation. Assume the pay sites had a deal where you could download a song or a movie for free (a "loss leader"). How much more expensive would it be to download from a "non-paying" site than it would be from a for-profit site, assuming the for-profit site is in this one instance giving away the product? Thanks, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agree with you two 100%. This "issue" is not germain to anything having to do with how Santorum would behave as president. There are lots of reasons to disagree (or apparently agree, for some people) with Santorum's proposed policies. Better to spend time/bandwidth on that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No, not really: "But despite being able to set all of the rules for the caucus, Iowa Republicans only request voters present a photo ID during registration. If a photo ID is not available, a registrant may sign an oath, along with one attester, to prove their identity." Nice try. Requiring photo id or witnessed oath to register, then using the registration as a form of ID. Looks like they're walking their talk more than the Dems are. Mike, I had to present a photo ID and proof of citizenship in order to register to vote (step 1). When I do go to vote, first I have to prove I am registered, by being listed on the voter roll (step 2). Then I have to prove I am who I say I am by presenting a photo ID (step 3). If we are going to try to fairly compare apples to apples, it seems to me that the process for voting in the Iowa Republican caucus involves steps 1 and 2, but not 3. The proposed legislation would have added step 3 to vote in the general election (as has been done here in Georgia). How can this be construed, other than to conclude that the Iowa Republican party wishes to impose a barrier to voting in the general election that they don't impose on themselves in the caucus? And, what possible reason could there be for this difference, other than to impose a burden that they feel will differentially affect Democrats? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. I have not bought a physical CD in a long time, I buy the music I want online. I also almost entirely buy from artists I hear on NPR (Eddie's Attic, Women in Music, Thistle & Shamrock, Just off the radar, etc) and from artists I encounter on YouTube (great guitarists such as Andy McKee, Don Ross, and Andrew White [all associated with Candyrat Records], Tommy Emmanuel, etc). One thing all these artists have in common is that they use the internet to put at least some of their music out to the public, as well as to sell their music, which allows them to ditch the big record houses and survive as independent artists who aren't forced into producing top 40 type dance music. I think this is great, as it allows more people to make a living making the music they want to make, without the ham-fisted "direction" of the big labels, and allows people like me a much greater choice of music. Where I have a problem is with the idea that the consumer is entitled to take what they want if the price doesn't suit them. I don't think $15-$20 for a CD is reasonable, so I don't buy at that price, but that means I don't get the CD. In a functioning marketplace, if enough people feel that way the producer will have to lower the price. However, if the consumer's idea of a fair price is so low the producer can't make a profit the CD will not be made in the first place. So the marketplace also puts pressure on the consumer to accept a price that covers expenses and allows for some profit. If the consumer has a ready option of obtaining what they want without paying anything (more about this is a minute), the market is distorted because the pressure is entirely on the artist/producer and the consumer never has to decide to forgo the product or pay the market price. Bill, you said that "There are no "free" methods of theft. Every method takes effort and time, and that translates into cost. A business model that provides a product at a lower effective cost will win in the end over theft even without anything like SOPA." In principle that is of course true. However I can't really think of what the difference in "effort and time" is between downloading from a file sharing site and a for-pay site, or how that difference would translate into money. I admit ignorance, as I don't download things I haven't paid for. It seems to me you need access to a computer and internet to do either one, so there isn't a cost differential there. Isn't it just a few mouse clicks to get to a file sharing site, and a few more for the pay site (to enter credit card number, billing address, etc)? If so, what cost is incurred to obtain music/movies without paying that is over and above what one would also have to incur to access a pay site? It seems to me you are saying a reasonable cost to buy a product should be less than the cost to steal it, but where/what are those costs? Even if musicians can trim costs by cutting out middlemen and using the internet to advertize, sell, and deliver the music, they still have to buy instruments, pay for studio time (or equipment to build their own studio), pay rent, buy food, etc. Not all of those costs can be reduced to nothing, so there will always be some point at which it is a losing proposition to make and distribute music. If the market value is set by factors (cost to steal) that have absolutely nothing to do with the cost to produce the product, it won't take long before there is no, or only a very limited choice, of product available at all. Fast, you said "Also, fwiw, I said steal with quotes because there is a difference in taking something that is tangible vs intangible. Neither is right, but there is a difference. " I agree there is a difference, but I actually put more emphasis on the intangible. Creative works don't appear out of the blue, they are the product of years of training, practice, and whatever magic happens in someone's head to allow them to make something distinct from anything else anyone has ever done before (however slightly). Consider someone who steals a painting that an artist has worked on for hundreds of hours, after spending years or decades learning technique and perfecting a distinctive style. Can you really say the painting is worth only the value of the canvas and paint? Is there no value to the time spent on the work, or on the time invested to acquire the skill to produce the work in the first place? Prices paid at auction for a Monet or a van Gogh suggest the "intangibles" are worth vastly more than the "tangible" canvas and paint. As I said before I think SOPA is badly conceived, and I have emailed my congressman to urge him to vote against it. However I would be interested in some realistic examples of how to establish a reasonable balance to the market so artists don't have to compete with "essentially free". And before anyone suggests it, I don't think expecting musicians to give away their music and live off of T-shirt sales is "reasonable". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What business model would you suggest that can compete with "free"? How low do you suggest the price has to be to induce people to pay for something as opposed to just stealing it. (notice no quotation marks around stealing, because taking something that others have paid a lot of money/time to produce, without compensating them, is stealing, not "stealing"). Part of the equation of what seems "reasonable financially" is the penalty to be paid if you are caught stealing. If there was no chance of being caught, prosecuted, and sent to jail, how many people do you think would pay for gas instead of just filling up and driving off? After all, the gas companies are just greedy bastards and they have enough money already, and I need a tank of gas to get to the DZ! SOPA is incredibly badly thought out, and if enacted will do a lot of harm, but the need to legislate some restrictions and penalties follows directly from consumer behavior. Absent any negative consequences to stealing, taking something (anything) without paying for it is always "reasonable financially". So musicians/actors/camera operators/set designers/writers/etc are owed nothing for their time and creative efforts? The price of a product should reflect nothing but the cost of the material used to generate a copy of the music/movie/book/whatever? How many movies do you expect will get made if the "reasonable market price" does not include anything for salaries, sets, special effects, etc? Do you really expect all those people to produce product for your entertainment without any expectation of compensation? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Seems like a nice dodge to get the taxpayer to pay for a substantial chunk of CEO compensation. Can anyone remind me why it's bad for unemployed people to collect unemployment insurance, but it's just dandy for private corporations to use tax writeoffs to pay their executives? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That comes across as a thinly veiled threat. Without the veil. You sure you want to go there? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The fact that he's a lying hypocritical scumbag, willing to bend to any convenient political wind for his own power, is indeed old news. Still relevant, but anyone who's been paying attention has known all that for 13 years or more. It's interesting, though, that the party of "family values"is willing to overlook all of that, though. Speaking of hypocrites... Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Didn't this come up in some previous election? It seems like "deja vu news" somehow. Anyway I have to doubt that Paul, or his son for that matter, are such overt racists. He seems too smart to let such sentiments be evident, even if he were to have them (which I don't believe). I think they do get into trouble on the issue of racism because of their stance on the Civil Rights Act and related legislation. The fact that there is a history in the US of some (many) people using the law, and their personal power, to deny others their legal civil rights forces others who disagree with that behavior to make a choice. You can opt to use the power of the law to try to deny racists the ability to interfere with basic civil rights of others; this is what the Civil Rights Act does. Of course, that legislation impedes the freedom of racists to act according to their beliefs (although it can't change their beliefs directly of course), and imposes "government approved behaviors" (i.e. the Constitution) on them. The libertarian perspective advocated by Paul, and more recently by his son, is instead to say the freedom of those with racist beliefs to act on those beliefs should take precedence over the governments imposition of it's "belief system". In other words, they would have preferred to have those suffering from the effects of institutionalized racism wait for relief until the racists in positions of power voluntarily agreed to give up some of that power (by allowing non-whites to vote, for example). So, although the Pauls themselves may not hold racist beliefs, they appear to be supporting racist positions by arguing that the government has no right to force people with racist beliefs to at least behave in a non-racist manner, despite the fact that this leaves the victims of racism with no relief. This sort of stance is why I cannot support Ron Paul. It permeates all his policies. According to him, the government should not be able to act to curtail polluters, or prevent the sale of contaminated food or fraudulent pharmaceutical drugs. If you believe you have been harmed by someone doing one of these things, you can (using your own resources) attempt to gather the data to prove your case, and then seek relief in the courts. In most cases that's an impossible task. If you have five different chemical plants spewing known carcinogens into the water supply of your city, and the cancer rate is ten times what it is in a normal area, you still will never be able to prove which individual plant released the specific carcinogenic molecule that spawned your specific tumor. Only an agency like the CDC, with the ability to investigate across state boundaries, has the ability to track down contaminated lettuce/peanut butter/whatever to its source and shut it down, preventing further infection. Paul would close the CDC, and leave it to individual states to do the job, although he knows individual states would not be able to track disease outbreaks or food shipments across state borders. Everyone must decide for themselves where the appropriate balance between personal freedom and government protection lies. I'm sure everyone on this forum agrees that we should be free to engage in behaviors that pose a risk only to ourselves (such as skydiving). Ron Paul (and his son) seem to place their balance so that most behaviors that do cause harm to others (perhaps short of actually shooting people) would be legally permissible; if you think you have been harmed you'll have to hope the courts can provide compensation after the fact. This is probably an inevitable consequence of their vision of a government that is so tiny that it can't actually do anything. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's unfortunate that his actions and his words were so dissonant. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sure. Like maybe they don't really need to pay between $7,600 and $19,000 (depending on how you figure it) to be protected from barbarian hordes. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting way to visualize the situation. However, don't forget to add in that there's a new baby on the way. The growth of the social security/medicare eligible population as a result of the retirement of the baby boom generation is something that will have to be accommodated, and unlike your hypothetical family the "gooberment" does not have the option of birth control. The alternative will be more akin to putting the grandparents out on an ice floe, except that this will require putting them out there despite the fact that for their whole working lives they paid into a system that was supposed to protect them from that fate. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We should provide such "services" only when it is in our national interest to do so, and then defending our national interest is the only paypack we should expect. In particular, it is a spectacularly bad idea to go around the world invading countries to "rescue" them from some bad guy we decide we don't like, then demand that the "rescuees" pay reparations. That stinks of gangster-style shakedowns. Also we have an extraordinarily atrocious track record of replacing leaders/governments we don't like with "our" depots who go on to be even more ruthless, which does our interests no good in the long run. Iran is a prime example of that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well sure, I just thought it would be amusing if he really did try to tackle a flying car. On the other hand, an incrementally better iPad might make a lot of money, but I can't really see that as a world-changing breakthrough leap forward, on the scale of the invention of radio or airplanes or the transistor or antibiotics. I guess that's part of why I like working in basic research, you never know what you'll discover. Personally I think the next real breakthrough technologies will be in bioengineering. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Several people have given you good advice: get to work and make it happen! Don't rely on someone else to do it for you. Here's some ideas to get you started: 1. Flying cars! Every 1950s "prediction" of the future had flying cars. Where are they? You're an engineer, make it happen. 2. Teleportation. Whatever happened to "beam me up Scotty"? What a game-changer that would be! Of course I'm sure there are a lot of less ambitious things you could start with, that would still find a decent market. I do think that a lot of the "malaise" that people feel is due to the fact that we have become largely consumers of entertainment, rather than being directly creative ourselves. We expect "the world" to provide us with music, movies/TV, professional sports, etc as well as the basic necessities of life. In times past people would learn to make their own music, or join a theater group, of actually play sports instead of paying other to play so we can watch. What a concept! Happiness doesn't reside in having the biggest plasma TV, it resides in creating things with your own hands and mind, and in the relationships we have with others. So stop moping and get to work! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How is this "Texas Taliban"? It's a specialty plate, no-one is forced to buy it. I wouldn't get one, but I couldn't care less if someone else wants to. Here in Georgia, a state legislator is pushing a law to change the license plates so they no longer display the county where the vehicle is registered, but instead would have the "One State Under God" slogan. If you choose, you can buy a sticker with the name of your county to cover up the slogan. That's much more "talibanish", as you have to spend money (a nominal amount, but it's the principle of the thing) for the privilege of publicly rejecting the "under God" statement. What's next, having to tattoo "Atheist" across your forehead? Wear a scarlet letter sewn to your clothes? Now if they had a plate that said "Touched by His Noodly Appendage" I might go for that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I have had research grants to work on understanding transmission of malaria, Dengue Fever, and Chagas' Disease. Do you believe that I invented those diseases, and spread them around the world, just to get grant money? I suppose in your myopic world it doesn't even bear considering that scientists get grants to work on real-world issues. Perhaps you're just projecting? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So THAT"S why they all like NASCAR! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Looks like a tumor, one of those giant boles you sometimes see on trees. Not offensive, but not attractive. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not necessarily. In some jurisdictions you can lose your right to vote for as little as $250 (quote from this source): "For example, in Massachusetts under penalties specified in MGL Chap. 266: Sec. 127,[16] a prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250.[17] Some people would argue that $250 is excessively low and that since this dollar amount has not risen for many years, even damaging another's radio or cell phone could result in losing one's right to vote. If the dollar thresholds are not increased by law (or indexed to inflation), a conviction for what is effectively very little money could result in losing one's right to vote." Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't really expect you to understand it...why do you care soooo much anyway? It's kinda tiresome having all you euro peeons all up in our business....go create your own drama. When you have the current front-runner for the Republican nomination advocating a position (the Palistinians aren't a "real" entity, and they should just leave the Middle East and go somewhere else) that is certain to prolong or even worsen the situation in the Middle East, currently the source of most of the instability and conflict that threatens all Western nations, then Europeans and all others who are endangered by that position have a right to speak up. Our "business" does not include the right to stir up shit that could well result in increased instability and danger, just so a wind-sock candidate can pander to evangelical right wing morons. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Any money the government spends is by definition spending other people's money, as it has no money of it's own (unless it just printed it, which is generally not a good idea). Your argument is in essence that there should be no government of any sort, as any activity will take some money and that must be raised by taxes. Yet you yourself make your living in an area that is taxpayer supported, as we are taxed to pay for the courts, judges, clerks, bailiffs, jails, the whole law enforcement/judicial system infrastructure. I might well argue that I do not plan to commit crimes, or divorce my wife, and so why should the government steal from me to pay for those who choose to engage in those activities? Of course, any reasonable person would recognize that circumstances could arise where we would need those government services, such as if we were the victim of a crime. Although the system is not perfect, it serves as a deterrent to those who would rob or defraud or physically harm us, and we enjoy a greater degree of freedom than we would if such people could operate at will. Reasonable people do not object to paying something to obtain the benefit of such a government service. Reasonable people also enjoy having access to an educated workforce, clean water and air, safe food and drugs, and a wide range of other services. Some expect to have these services and not pay for them, but these are parasites on the rest of us. We can certainly debate about what is and what is not within the proper sphere of government services. Social security and medicare were created in response to a situation in which a very high proportion of retired people lived in poverty, and/or were without access to medical insurance and often services. This situation was judged to be an affront to civilized people. Today we seem to have moved towards an attitude of "I got mine, fuck everybody else". Ron Paul advocates a position of no oversight of pollution, food safety, or drug safety, and says if you think you have been harmed you can try to prove it and seek redress in the courts. People whose vision of government services is that narrow can vote for Dr Paul, and if enough do so we will go ahead and build a bridge to the 19th century. Maybe you do not mean such an extreme view of things, but your comment seemed to imply that to me. I also disagree that the government by definition always spends other people's money on other people. With a few exceptions, the government spends my money on me, as well as on everybody else in this country. I appreciate not having to test my drinking water for E coli, or having to risk an unpleasant death if I eat a ham sandwich, and I appreciate the economic activity that follows from having a workforce that is educated (though that could be better), and so on. These things are done more efficiently when they are done for the whole of society, instead of piecemeal one paying client at a time. I do not expect to get these services for free. Others may disagree. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)