Freedom of creation goes byebye

our government really needs to turn over faster so we dont have thse old fogies who dont understand technology constantly trying to legislate on it. Maybe some younger congressmen would realize why a measure like this couldnt possibly work.
 
No less than we deserve

Americans keep electing this brand of politician. It's no more or less than we deserve. And if it costs us a technological advantage, our domination of the world, and our economic clout, well ... that's exactly what the people will have asked for.

The problem with blaming the stupid politicians is that we know they're stupid when we elect them.

And besides ... if "Workers Against Job Killing Rules" can defeat at the ballot box a law that, by necessity of regulatory bureaucracy, would create jobs, that shows you how gullible people are.

Furthermore ... the folks in Congress either pretend or actually believe that any such coding requirement would stand practically. There's a nation full of disgruntled teenagers and college students out there that will rip through any such coding. There is always a way. Once it's digital ... ask the RIAA what comes next.

The analogy would be to limit your car's power, by law, so that it could carry one person at 70 mph maximum on a flat. That way, nobody will exceed the speed limit. And the underlying point, of course, would be that few people could achieve the speed limit.
 
too much of anything is bad.. including freedom. this attempt at curbing theft of royaltees from musicians, software companies etc, is coated with words like "infringement on rights and freedoms"
i'd say more like "freedom to steal goes bye bye".
this bill might have some problems...no bill is perfect... but the idea behind it is pretty reasonable.

well ... that's exactly what the people will have asked for
you got that right. and if the people have asked for something that means they want it. too bad if it's not what you consider correct eh? :rolleyes:

if "Workers Against Job Killing Rules" ...
a) job creation is not the most important thing in the world.
b) it might slow down certain job creations, and speed up other job creations.

The analogy would be to limit your car's power ...
i thought of that analogy a few times before.
even though there's a speed limit, cars can go 2-3 times faster than that. faster even. here in ontario (canada) the limit on horse power is 500.
why would you need such a fast car if it's illegal to drive it at even half of it's maximum speed? oh right, i forgot... freedom.....
don't get me wrong, i love fast cars... and i love downloading free music and never paying a cent for software.....but people love to break the rules and giving them opportunities to do it will not make them wanna not-do it. it will encourage them.
 
On jobs: voting for a name

a) job creation is not the most important thing in the world.
b) it might slow down certain job creations, and speed up other job creations.
Click to expand...
Actually, my complaint about Workers Against Job-Killing Rules is that it was just a name. They never really established that case. In the end, WAJKR is just a group of business owners who don't want to comply (Building Industry Association of Washington). Oh, well. It's the American way; after all, this country was founded as a tax dodge.

Basically, the "Job Killing" is like the higher insurance premiums in an election in 1997. The people who said the insurance initiative would raise rates, who all the people against the initiative cited, were from the boards of three insurance companies. The basic message? "Pass this measure and we'll jack your premiums for no reason." Which is a little like BIAW/WAJKR's position: "We don't want to comply with this law, so we'll say it will cost jobs. Of course, we are the people who decide there will be job cuts."

And it sounds a little like the west coast's labor struggles in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Back then, the shippers said a number of things:

- Safety measures would be too costly; early unionization efforts on the Seattle waterfront stemmed from safety concerns; coal and lumber cargoes were especially precarious.
- Unionization would be too costly.
- Meeting union wage demands would be too costly.

All of this would kill jobs and wreck the shipping industry in Seattle . . . or so they said.

(1) http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/04/07/daily17.html
(2) http://www.theaustin.com/html/up-port_of_seattle.html

(Notice the Kingdome, replaced by Seahawks Stadium, in the background of the picture of the Port of Seattle ....)

Nonetheless, I should probably return this topic to its original track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top