Poppycocks, I say! (btw, I don't know if that is a word, but it is fun to say).

Back in the day, most cities had multiple newspapers that competed against each other. However, in the past 25 years or many newspapers have gone under leaving many cities with only one.

Newspapers were hurt by television news and then later even more by 24 hour cable news. Now they are being killed off by the internet.

Hopefully, they find a working business models. Television news is terrible. Most of my news comes from the internet, but from websites such as nytimes.com, etc. Charging isn't going to work.

If this is what Murdoch thinks than it might not be goodbye to free internet news, but goodbye to News Corporation.

Wow!

Well, it's cheaper to bring multiple services into your home per service obviously than just one.

Also, have you ever heard of volume or bundle discounts? Of course it's cheaper for people who get both services.

You aren't a rocket scientist are you?

That sucks. But can't non-Americans just route through a proxy or something?

I'd probably also blame this on your networks, since they syndicate many of these shows. It would probably violate the contracts to allow non-Americans to view the shows before your local neetwork has shown the program. The question is why is there often such a delay before the foreign network airs the show? If there isn't a delay than this is really stupid.

But really I often just don't understand Hollywood. They bitch that China is pirating all their movies. Yet you can't legally buy them in China. So how can it possibly be costing them money? Plus half the time, the movies wouldn't be allowed in China because of censorship.

Wow, www.useit.com is a terrible looking website and difficult to use. Why in God's name would anyone hire this man? A useability review from him is something like $38,000. That would be the biggest waste of money ever. Definitely wouldn't trust his services after seeing this website. Also, why after making a comment and hitting the preview button does it take 40 seconds before I can submit the comment. Slashdot has become the most annoying site to submit comments at (yet that is one of the main points of the site).

Also, much of China's and India's pollution is created from factories. Factories making stuff for us at exceptionally cheap prices.

Not really right. I think what you mean is that many states have use taxes for out-of-state purchases which equals what they would have paid in sales taxes had they made the purchase in-state. However, nobody actually pays the use tax (since, hell, nobody actually knows how much they purchased out-of-state, so enforcing use tax laws would be a nightmare and politically dangerous). This law would allow the states to collect this tax money. But, not all states have use tax. For example, I believe in Missouri your first $2,000 in out-of-state purchases are exempt (and I don't think I know anyone who has paid the tax for an amount greater than that, though most people probably spend under $2,000, which is probably why that is the rule). So this law will encourage states to tax what they otherwise aren't taxing, so politicians can get their greedy little paws on more of our money. This isn't an internet loophole. It's always been this way with mail-order. Congress and States are trying to raise our taxes.

Yeah, that's why states can't force out-of-state sellers to collect the sales tax now. It is prohibited by the dormant commerce clause. However, Congress can pass a law which allows the states to collect such sales tax. So basically, collecting sales tax on internet purchases affects interstate commerce too much. So it is the domain of the federal government and not states, but the Federal Government can give authority to the states if it wants.

The U.S. has the First Amendment. Also, we're all for the most part unrelated to the case, so the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over slashdot readers.

Relevant to this topic is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Was this a bad attorney? I imagine the pot shouldn't have been admitted into evidence (meaning he would almost have to be acquitted) since it was found in an unconstitutional search and seizure (violation of the 4th Amendment). You could have testified to this. Of course, it would have been your word and your friend's against that of the police officer.

Can't you just use a proxy server to watch Hulu if you're not in the U.S.? Or are they too slow? I no someone who does something similar to watch baseball games on MLB.TV when the games are blacked out.

Probably because the Constitutional ex post facto provision only applies to criminal laws and not civil ones. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).

Before some of you go about getting very angry and saying the Constitution doesn't say it only applies to criminal laws, note the date of this case (1798 - decided by people who were around during the time when the Constitution was created).

What's up with you people on Slashdot? See below for some language that is actually in the Constitution.

Yes, the Federal Government is a government of limited power. It is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify what the motivations for using those powers must be though. Is President Herbert Hoover your favorite president?

The Federal Government can regulate commerce, establish post roads, etc. Nothing in the Constitution says it can only do so for certain reasons, and not to stimulate the economy. The Federal Government has enormous spending authority. It can't force states to do certain things, but it can entice them with the money strings

Also, I think we should stop giving the Founders so much credit. They couldn't even spell "defense" correctly. (Just joking, no offense to the rest of the English speaking world is meant).

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause for some interesting information on this in layman's terms. Looks like there wasn't an agreement on the reach of this clause by the founding fathers.

But under Supreme Court case law, Congress has pretty broad discretion in using its spending power.

As to your question:

No, they can't do anything under the general welfare clause. The Federal Government is bound by the enumerated powers in the Constitution. So while say forcing the states to do something might be beyond its power, it can entice the states to fall in line using the power of the purse strings. Of course there are some restrictions. See South Dakota v. Dole.