Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re: Authority (Score 3, Informative) 180

by dywolf (#49157369) Attached to: As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies

once again: you are wrong about independent agencies.
we've been through this at least a dozen times.
Congress absolutely has the power the to delegate, the same as the President does.

Just as no one could ever reasonably the President to personally oversee the enforcement of the entire body of law without delegation, no one could ever expect the Congress, 535 people, to personally be experts at every single topic and perform all necessary oversight. It take an entire agency to keep an eye on Wall Street, the SEC. It takes an entire agency to study the environment we live in and forge compromises between the needs of the public and the needs of industry, the EPA. I could run through the entire list, but there should be no need.

The only people who argue the point are unreasonable people who think a return to the agrarian society run by educated scholarly farmers envisioned by Jefferson is still a real possibility, ignoring all else that has happened in the past 200 years. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that Congress can delegate, but it doesnt explicitily state a lot of things that we take for granted. The Founders were a lot of things, and varied a lot in ideology and opinion on strong or weak the government should be. But one thing they were not was stupid. And the idea that they expected us to adhere to the document like a holy writ verbatim for eternity was not part of the plan, as evidenced by the many clauses and phrases that are vague generalities and obviously exist solely for the purpose of expanding on the parts that are spelled out.

Parts like (and this is not an exhaustive list) the 9th Amendment, the process for amending the document, and most relevant to this topic, the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the "basket clause". Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:

p>The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

IE, whatever it takes to run the country and enact the peoples will, they can do. Case closed.
And there was a case, and it wasn't recent. McCulloch v Maryland, in 1819, a time when many of the Founders were themselves still alive, if not for much longer. And in that case the Courts established quite clearly that:

"First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government."

as indeed it must. Explicit powers are no good if they cannot be implemented due to the technicality that the prerequisites were not also explicitly stated. Again: the Founders were not stupid, but to take the opposite interpretation, an interpretation you seem to believe, is to imply that the Founders were in fact stupid.

Comment: Re: Oh bullshit! (Score 1) 317

by dywolf (#49151463) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Also note that the ACLU in fact DOES and HAS stood up for the 2nd Amendment, which is also alluded to in their position paper.

So while they believe it to be a group or societal right rather than an individual one, they also oppose efforts to create gun owners registry. And they have worked with the NRA to prevent such a registry from being created. And they've fought cases where police have used the presence of a gun to wrongly establish probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment.

So there. You're slightly less stupid now.

(example case:

Comment: Re: Oh bullshit! (Score 1) 317

by dywolf (#49151417) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

No, actually I'm well aware of the 2nd Amendment, its court history, and the ACLUs stance, unlike you. Note that it took until 2008 for the SCOTUS to rule as it did, and that decision was contrary to existing precedent, and required the most ideological conservative court since the Hughes Court that battled FDR every step of the way through the New Deal.

The ACLUs position is here:

It states:

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

Note that it doesnt say "there is no right to bear arms", nor does it say "we opposed the 2nd amendment". Ergo, the ACLU doesn't oppose the 2nd Amendment. They just disagree with your chosen interpretation of it, which is not the same thing.

Which is what I said the first time.

So the ignorant one is you, and apparently you are incapable of logic as well.
And you also apparently dont know what flamebait is, as I must assume you are the cowardly mod (or even a sock pupper for ganjadude) who decided logic and reasoning were "flamebait" because you didnt like them.

(also i find it amusing that you assume I even agree them, rather than am simply pointing out and correcting your ignorance of the topic and your faulty logic)

Comment: Re:That is okay (Score 3, Insightful) 299

the simple fact of the matter is that EVERYONE is underpaid.
that doesn't mean you should begrudge the dockworker a decent living simply because "they're uneducated box pushers".

rather, the key to boosting everyones' pay to where it should be is to start raising wages.
the economy can handle it easily.

The simple fact of the matter is that is wages had kept pace with productivity the current median wage would be ~140k/yr, and not the current anemic ~50k/yr.

All the extra revenue from that increased productivity has been going to the executives, the CEOs, the 0.1%, since the mid 70s. Ever since they first started weakening the unions, spreading the myth of "trickle down economics", and generally f---ing over the middle class who built this country and its economy. God forbid the people who actually generate that revenue, who actually caused the growth in the economy, share in the fruits of their labor.

Comment: Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1, Insightful) 618

by dywolf (#49140793) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Oh looks its mi back to provide more lies, while backing his arguments with links to sites that actually disprove everything he says.
Mi, the gentleman who declares "I'm not a bigot, I love (insert random slur here)."

Seriously though. Yet again, from your links:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Let us remember that the FCC exists because "the spectrum" is seen and treated under law as a public resource owned by the nation's citizens. So the FCC was
created to administer it (in lieu of created the Federal Minitry of Truth you mention and worry about) in a collaboration between government (and the public's) interests in having the spectrum used in the publics benefit, and private interests in making money while doing so. A middle ground, a middle way, between government provided (and potentially abused) content, and private use (and potential abuse) of the spectrum. A compromise.

That's background. Onto the Fairness Doctrine:
No part of the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with determining "what content is fair".. So right off the bat you're spouting BS. Rather, it simply requires that broadcasters talk about "things in the public interest", which essentially means news. Like right now, there is a major trade deal going down, the TPP, that not one news channel is talking about. OR during and after citizens united, they rarely talk about the money in politics. Such ignoring of important issues would be a valid basis for a complaint to the FCC. And complimentary to the first part of the rule, when discussing or presenting these "things in the public interest", the presentation couldn't be one sided. IE, no Fox News. This so far is logical, straightforward, and completely reasonable.

But lets dig further. More from your link:

In 1974, the Federal Communications Commission stated that the Congress had delegated it the power to mandate a system of "access, either free or paid, for person or groups wishing to express a viewpoint on a controversial public issue..." but that it had not yet exercised that power because licensed broadcasters had "voluntarily" complied with the "spirit" of the doctrine.

So it was never actually enforced. Broadcasters, chiefly the big 3 until the advent of cable, implemented a similar policy internally and voluntarily.

I could point out your stupidity and ignorance on these topics all day long, but I'm running out of time and need to cut the history and facts lesson short. But the history even gets more interesting: when the FCC revoked the doctrine, there was significant opposition to it. They feared one sided mouth pieces for companies, politicians, or other special interests. A de-evolution of political discourse fed by the chief mechanic people rely on to be informed. Any of that sound familiar, like a news channel or two you know about? Hmmm?

In short: go away you ill informed troll.

Comment: Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 2) 618

by dywolf (#49140359) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Silicon Valley not only backs it, they created it.
The father of the internet supports it.
It's nothing secret, its simply the codification of the current status quo.

As for "what Comcast might do" ... they've ALREADY DONE IT. Several times. Tried several more. Its why they oppose NN in the first place, and if they could have gotten NN declared totally dead (instead of merely struck down on technicality a few years ago) they wou;d have been even more brazen more immediately.

"This whole thing" (your post) is a pile of BS written by an ignorant, incompetent shill trying to lie for the telcos.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman