Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
Update: A spokesperson for Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has emailed to deny that Quan "coordinated" Oakland's response to Occupy protesters with other mayors. "Mayor Quan never said that cities with occupy encampments were coordinating their removal efforts," Susan Piper wrote in an email. "The mayor has talked with other mayors to share experiences." In a subsequent email, I asked Piper if Quan received advice from either the DHS or the FBI on how to respond to protesters, as reported was by Rick Ellis of Examiner.com. Piper's response: "Not true."
You forgot Yemen.
(Read the above in Bush's voice)
One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong.
As far as I can tell, that figure was pulled out of the author's ass. Equally your rebuttal. A little bit of googling reveals it is at least on the order of hundreds of billions.
One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.
In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money. The people voted with their wallets (well, eyeballs). If you, as a concerned citizen, see someone buying up the spectrum in a way you don't like, then you should pony up your own dough and make a bid. Or you could start broadcasting on the web, or some other hitherto unknown technology, and render all that TV spectrum they purchased worthless, and they'd be bankrupt. Capitalism is a harsh mistress.
Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other.
That was addressed in the link:
Huber proposes that the government sell off standard units of spectrum--
... -- using existing geographical contours for each type of frequency.
Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply
Standards only come about via government dictat? USB, HDMI, 33 1/3 rpm records... ? If a bureaucrat doesn't think of it, it can't exist?
The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too.
I'd say that is akin to trespassing. The link may say lawsuits only, but I can see a criminal case similar to trespass.
A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular.
Sounds like someone fucked up the auction, then.
The FCC still has a purpose.
Even if that were true, I'd like to see where among the enumerated powers Congress gets the authority for even creating or continuing the FCC.
By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature?
Good question! Who regulates it now?
Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy. What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.
More details in the link.
Simply put, the FCC should not exist.
I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court.
Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder.
you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.
The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.
What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?
Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.
But informing people we're going to do racial profile before they buy the ticket makes it A-OK, right? I mean, it's A-OK to get a full-body scan (or whatever... like a cavity search?) if you look wrong, so long as we let you know ahead of time, right?
The simple fact of the matter is that spending and tax reduction during economic downturn has been shown to be ineffective at best (the Hoover presidency shows how bad it can be).
In 1994 government debt was 68 percent of Canada's GDP. By 2008 that number was down to 29 percent. Finance Minister Paul Martin Jr. and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, both of the Liberal Party, are the two unlikely stars in this heroic tale of fiscal discipline.
By Keynsian logic, during that time Canada should have descended into chaos and civil war with 90% unemployment. Well, that didn't happen.
Link to Original Source