Barack Obama wins the Democratic Nomination

[Squeezer]

I think it's pretty sad to compare how much money your country gives to charity. You should be giving to help other people, not to make yourself look like a saint. Arrogance and nationalism is off the scale here. Please continue the discussion, it is a bit entertaining.
Going at Izor's level is about the best thing you can do in this forum if you aren't into doing drugs.

damnit

[Kolar]

But the head of FEMA (literally, no joke) had read a fw news articles saying "new orleans dodged the bullet" and so he saw no reason to fix or prevent the problems that eventually arose.

Do you mean after the storm or before. I don't think the upkeep of the levees were under the control of FEMA. I think that falls under the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

I don't see how private ownership would have prevented their failure. Privatization has in some cases been proven to cut costs, and obviously as it's a labor and material intensive project it likely would have. But fundamentally to obtain that objective, to cut costs, standards will likely have been on par if not lower. Privatization does not ensure quality, it's a means to an end and that end is saving money through efficiencies. I also think we would know next to nothing of why or how it failed and what to do in the future, CEO and CFO + paper shredder...

[Jerome Scuggs]

I don't see how private ownership would have prevented their failure. Privatization has in some cases been proven to cut costs, and obviously as it's a labor and material intensive project it likely would have. But fundamentally to obtain that objective, to cut costs, standards will likely have been on par if not lower. Privatization does not ensure quality, it's a means to an end and that end is saving money through efficiencies. I also think we would know next to nothing of why or how it failed and what to do in the future, CEO and CFO + paper shredder...

Theoretically but in this particular case this wasn't the issue. Most of the construction companies were Headquartered in New Orleans. Like my best friend's dad, who went into to detail about not how the levee would save people, but save him millions by preventing loss of his goods and facilities.

You make the assumption that the only method of efficiency is cost-cutting via lowering standards, when historically companies that truly make the best profits are those who increase profit margin by streamlining processes or re-adjusting their structure of production in light of innovation. I will agree that privatization in of itself does not ensure quality, but long-run standards will increase - because on a free market, a competitor could make a profit by showing the deficiencies in a levee, and showing how his product would be better. Though this too, is theoretically possible, the reality is this would only happen once such progressed technology is more economically feasible - as the Army Corps of Engineers found out. And specifically because of government planning, new innovations of levee-design were not immediately added or even considered except by private, local construction companies, who have been ready to employ those innovations at the first sign of government approval, which did not come until it was too late.

[Kolar]

I will agree that privatization in of itself does not ensure quality, but long-run standards will increase - because on a free market, a competitor could make a profit by showing the deficiencies in a levee, and showing how his product would be better.

The push for innovation does not change the acceptable level of quality in a product. A disk player regardless of how many leaps forward we make in terms of technology, I.E increasing the capacity of a CD/DVD, laser technology, the player can not put out massive amounts of radiation harmful to humans. The disks can not be made of substandard materials else they'll break and damage electrical equipment.

I would have to look it up but I am pretty sure the levee system wasn't up to industry standards to begin with, and I doubt it had anything to do with the lacking application of technology. Just as an unchecked private company serving the public interest can become corrupt and ineffective so to can a public entity. It will always come down to what is cheaper and how you rationalize a purchase, for both private and public enterprises. All I am saying is that there has to be at the very least some level of internal and external oversight in either case. Neither can go without because for every 10 privately made disaster you could equally list as many public ones, there's proper ways of doing business and that ends when people give into personal gain and apathy.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I would have to look it up but I am pretty sure the levee system wasn't up to industry standards to begin with, and I doubt it had anything to do with the lacking application of technology.

Just as an unchecked private company serving the public interest can become corrupt so to can a public entity. It will always come down to what is cheaper and how you rationalize a purchase, for both private and public enterprises. All I am saying is that there has to be at the very least some level of internal and external oversight in either case. Neither can go without.

If it wasn't up to industry standards, than what good is the Army Corps of Engineers? This is what the companies here are bitter about - the failure of the "public works" to live up to their own standards,

Once again the implication is made that government oversight is the only form of oversight, when that's not the case. The market has several forms of oversight, a few examples being things like Consumer Reports and other consumer information businesses, as well as industry 'groups' which demand a certain level of quality in order to join, with accreditation as an award.

edit: I know you hate it, but here's a guy from New Orleans who puts it alot more succinctly than I can. Yes, he's a biased libertarian, but he's not lying or distorting truth, only presenting facts and drawing conclusions. Feel free to disagree with his analysis, not his bias. To throw something out there, since Katrina, a significant amount of companies are now relocating to my city - something this guy said would happen, and for his exact reasons.

[Kolar]

If it wasn't up to industry standards, than what good is the Army Corps of Engineers? This is what the companies here are bitter about - the failure of the "public works" to live up to their own standards,

Once again the implication is made that government oversight is the only form of oversight, when that's not the case. The market has several forms of oversight, a few examples being things like Consumer Reports and other consumer information businesses, as well as industry 'groups' which demand a certain level of quality in order to join, with accreditation as an award. Of course, the biggest oversight committee is perhaps the purchasing public itself. If a business fucks up, they usually fuck up once... and then they're gone, replaced by a competitor. Government... well, they've blown up not one, but two space shuttles. How much oversight was that?

I'm not defending them. As I said it has to be an internal and external effort to ensure another disaster doesn't happen, you can't rely on a purely internal system of checks and balances (see Enron) while not having someone on the outside objectively saying "Wait, WTF is going on here??".

A business can actively work against their customer's best interests and desires and stay in business, not sure where it was but I discussed the Telecom industry in Ontario in GD. There's a duopoly in Ontario for telecommunication services with Bell Canada (DSL) and Rogers Cable (Cable) and both can set their own price if the region they're operating in is not 80% owned by either one. Both actively seek to interfere with the transmission of data through bandwidth throttling and charge excessive amounts of money for going over a modest cap. Even going with a wholesaler not participating in those activities on their network is hindered with Bell Canada throttling all data that passes over their network. There's now no company I can goto to 'vote with my wallet'. It's a pretty good but plain example where an outside entity (FCC CRTC) must protect consumers because their choice and the direction of the entire market is not in the hands of the individual.

[Galleleo]

The fact that I am dyslexic has nothing to do with my intelligence.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm not defending them. As I said it has to be an internal and external effort to ensure another disaster doesn't happen, you can't rely on a purely internal system of checks and balances (see Enron) while not having someone on the outside objectively saying "Wait, WTF is going on here??".

In Enron's case, it's government regulation that made their gimmick possible. What made it fail was a market reaction.

The thing with internet companies is a very interesting issue that I have not had time to really pour over, but this is what I know: One, that the reason internet companies are so big and consolidated is because (at least in the US) the companies were given geographical monopolies - sole ownership of a part of the US, which of course immediately cuts out any form of competition that could lead to serious price-lowering. Two, the companies built and own vast amounts of the network infrastructure... they own it, and are therefore theoretically free to charge whatever their price for use of said network. AT&T has defended their recent bandwidth cap & resulting fees as a way to pay for installation of a new fiber-optic cable infrastructure. Since I'm an AT&T customer, I am pretty thrilled. Three, "Net Neutrality" is yet another word for what it is in reality: nationalization of these networks. I, for one, value the internet's freedom, and if it falls under government hands then privacy will probably be destroyed and can you imagine the censorship potential? Yes they might start off censoring shit like child porn, but if and when they set a precedent than the book is open for any sort of censorship. I know this sounds crazy but... I mean, does it, looking at my government?

[Izor]

So what youre implying is that because the govt censors things like child porn on television that we dont have some of our freedoms over that medium? I mean...really you're not making a point there you think that big brother is after you because you speak out about the government on a forum. Theres a big difference between them censoring something that is illegal anyway and preventing you from having free speech. You cant draw that conclusion from where you're going with that argument

[Kolar]

In Enron's case, it's government regulation that made their gimmick possible. What made it fail was a market reaction.

Cool but that's not what the history books are going to say.

AT&T has defended their recent bandwidth cap & resulting fees as a way to pay for installation of a new fiber-optic cable infrastructure. Since I'm an AT&T customer, I am pretty thrilled.

And that would be: A Lie. They are running into some issues now because they haven't invested in expanding their network and upgrading. It's shitting on the little guy for their failings, while we have these companies buying up other markets. It's not called the Rogers Centre for nothing. If they planned years ago for the number of people moving off of dial-up to the high speed market then maybe they could claim that. And maybe not if there was some transparency, openness and inclusion.

Three, "Net Neutrality" is yet another word for what it is in reality: nationalization of these networks. I, for one, value the internet's freedom, and if it falls under government hands then privacy will probably be destroyed and can you imagine the censorship potential? Yes they might start off censoring shit like child porn, but if and when they set a precedent than the book is open for any sort of censorship. I know this sounds crazy but... I mean, does it, looking at my government?

Privacy is already gone on the Internet. The Telcos have allowed phone and data communication to be filtered and scrutinized by Federal agencies and I think it continues today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...ce_controversy
And all the big telecoms allowed it to happen, they raised no issues with it. It took the due diligence of the media and some insiders to reveal what actually was going on. I've looked into issues of censorship and the interaction of Government and the Internet, I am no expert but what even some brilliant people (who also oppose control of the network) purpose such as Lessig, an online magistrate system to handle disputes, goes beyond silly. Nothing will change in regards to keeping the Internet free and open as long as the principles which brought it into conception are not respected. If that's antithetical to the their business plan and viability then maybe there is something in having it a not for profit, and even publicly controlled market.

Edit: In Canada there's a list which blocks some sites, all Internet providers are covered by this by choice. It covers child porn but recently has included sites like Neo-Nazi organizations and others on their level. That could be a slippery slope if we get a Conservative majority so it has to be kept in check but I still think it's a good thing.

[Downfall]

*** Gonna hunt Obama down

[Jerome Scuggs]

And that would be: A Lie. They are running into some issues now because they haven't invested in expanding their network and upgrading. It's shitting on the little guy for their failings, while we have these companies buying up other markets. It's not called the Rogers Centre for nothing. If they planned years ago for the number of people moving off of dial-up to the high speed market then maybe they could claim that. And maybe not if there was some transparency, openness and inclusion.

...why invest in upgrading your network when the government has given you monopoly and subsidies? with no competition, there's no incentive for innovation. And it's even worse because it's a monopoly by law, meaning even if a small business could somehow develop a cheaper, competitive, mass-scale alternative - it would be illegal to deploy, so research into those innovative areas is stymied as well.

This issue has already come up before, in 1996, and killed investment and even destroyed service altogether.

as for lies...

Privacy is already gone on the Internet. The Telcos have allowed phone and data communication to be filtered and scrutinized by Federal agencies and I think it continues today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...ce_controversy
And all the big telecoms allowed it to happen, they raised no issues with it. It took the due diligence of the media and some insiders to reveal what actually was going on. I've looked into issues of censorship and the interaction of Government and the Internet, I am no expert but what even some brilliant people (who also oppose control of the network) purpose such as Lessig, an online magistrate system to handle disputes, goes beyond silly. Nothing will change in regards to keeping the Internet free and open as long as the principles which brought it into concept are not respected. If that's antithetical to the their business plan and viability then maybe there is something in having it a not for profit, and even publicly controlled market.

Well, considering the government is the source of their profit and competition-free markets, it's no wonder they give in so easily, lest they have their wonderful monopolies and money yanked away from them. Of course, let's not forget that the government is the one scrutinizing and spying, is that suddenly not the issue at hand when it's revealed the telcos were helping?

[Izor]

Why do you think the government is out to get you? And who specifically in the government do you think is trying to spy on you? Govt employees are normal people like me or you, not whatever the hell you think they are. They more or less have a level of respect for your own personal privacy. Unless of course you were breaking the law. A good way to relate to this is my work as a network admin. I have access to everything on my network and I can go take a look at anything thats out there in my down time, to include peoples' exchange accounts. Do I? Of course not, because I have no reason to do so...

[Kolar]

...why invest in upgrading your network when the government has given you monopoly and subsidies? with no competition, there's no incentive for innovation. And it's even worse because it's a monopoly by law, meaning even if a small business could somehow develop a cheaper, competitive, mass-scale alternative - it would be illegal to deploy, so research into those innovative areas is stymied as well.

They're going to have a monopoly on the market regardless because of the last mile issue.

Not sure what point you're trying to make but Hands Off the Internet is a fake "consumer coalition" group. They represent the attempt by the major telecoms to make it appear there's a grass roots campaign against network neutrality. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ is more representative of the grass roots level and that of consumer protection groups. It might as well be AT&T's press release. We're decades away from wide spread residential fiber drops in North America, it's not relevant to the current debate on bandwidth throttling.

And here in Ontario I believe they have to sell off a percentage of their network to wholesalers who then act as their customer's direct ISP. That's the problem though when Bell Canada exerts influence over their portion of the network. It doesn't seem to be failing here because of Government interference, a lot of people who want (or need) a lot of bandwidth or a better up/down speed specifically go after the service they want (Teksavvy being a popular one here). But now with restrictions placed on those customers there's no difference between going with Teksavvy versus going with Bell Canada. All of this is completely illegal (and will never be contested) but the worst thing of all is that Bell never told a single wholesaler about it, they had to find out from their customers. I'm sure that hurt their business as they cater to highly skilled and educated groups who went with their service for the very reason of less restrictions.

So answer me on this: What should I do about my Internet service? If I have no choice over which service I want, and the situation is the result of both public and private failures, should I not have the ability to lobby my Member of Parliament? and should they not have some ability to protect their constituents from out and out fraud?

[Summa]

Why do you think the government is out to get you? And who specifically in the government do you think is trying to spy on you? Govt employees are normal people like me or you, not whatever the hell you think they are. They more or less have a level of respect for your own personal privacy. Unless of course you were breaking the law. A good way to relate to this is my work as a network admin. I have access to everything on my network and I can go take a look at anything thats out there in my down time, to include peoples' exchange accounts. Do I? Of course not, because I have no reason to do so...

its not that they are out to get us, its that the american government is completely useless unless there is a crisis. what one party tries to establish the other party will destroy when they take over. one party must be in control of all 3 branches in order to get anything done. everyone just ends up compromising to appease enough people to pass what they want and it ends up as mushy shit that really accomplishes nothing.