Another Fox Reporter thinks the 'Daily Show' is a real news program

Over at breitbart.tv there is this crazy guy. And here is my take on the whole thing from a comment I posted on Digg.com.

Definition of Fascism is not big business and government getting into bed with each other. The definition of fascism according to the New Oxford American dictionary is:

"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

I didn't know giving out money to buy companies is fascism. I always thought that was more like Socialism then fascism. Why can't the Wingnuts get their -isms straight?

Still, throwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem. As a Libertarian, I believe that a true capitalist economy would allow any company that is failing to fail. Why? Because there would be less intellectual property protections, ie patents, copyright, for big business. A business either succeeds or fails. But it seems not in America, here big business and government have always been in bed together. In fact, it's the government that has allowed big business to become big business and help create monopolies.

It is the governments job to invest in infrastructure and to instigate competition. But all our government has done was been to allow the creation of monopolies and invested in nothing. Education sucks, manufacturing is practically dead in this country, and we have loss our edge as a first world nation. So what is the prescription that the Democrats and Republicans come up with? Lets give failing businesses more money to reward them for their ineptness. Hey, we do it all the time for the politicians by continuing to elect them time and time again when they make bad decisions.

So, the Daily Show edited another Wingnut. Big surprise, but I didn't realize that Fox News considered it a real news program, now that's scary!

Powered by ScribeFire.

National Broadband Policy

There is a post over at techdirt.com about the possibility of US government to create a policy that is similar to the one that was created to build roads and highways. The proposal is very interesting because the government would form a department that would lay out all the fiberoptic cable thorough out the nation. The problem is think about how the DOT (Department of Transportation) works, right now. All interstate highways, I believe, were created by the Federal government but the state highways are maintained by the states via Federal dollars. And to continue, the states shove money to the local government to improve those roads. It sounds like a not a big problem but it is if you think about it the problem. Most of the money tends to be spent creating all these different departments, and maintaining the personnel for them, before a dime is spent on the roads. What would make you think that it wouldn't happen again?

AT&T was one huge company that created smaller, or actually swallowed up smaller, companies in regions of the United States. They controlled the entire phone system. Since they were a monopoly, and some of their practices were shady, the gave the appearance to stop other companies from forming. One of the reasons were that they created the network of phone lines and switches that made up the phone system. They were, eventually, tried and found guilty of barring other companiesfrom entering the market using that monopolistic power. Thus, they were broken up into smaller bits and the government ruled that they had to lease the lines out to long distance companies. And that smaller local companies could come about and take care of the "last mile" line to the actual home. This allowed for competition. Until 1996, when Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In which, not only did he sell of federal control of the Internet to private companies. But he allowed telephone companies the ability to offer cable television services and cable companies to offer phone services. This supposedly created more competition. Of course, AT&T wasn't forced to charge fair market price but a price they wanted. So small phone companies started offering services but quickly started to lose money because AT&T jacked up that price. Soon they would go out of business. Where is MCI these days? There is less of a fear that if AT&T becomes a behomonth again that they will be the monopoly they once were. Why? Because local monopolistic cable companies exist and offer the same services.

What does this AT&T have to do with a National Broadband Policy? Well, think about how current cable broadband companies operate. They are not a huge cable company that owns entire regions of the cabled United States. They've done a great job of laying most of the infrastructure but in a local setting. And rather then dominate and entire county. Two or three companies tend to carve up the market between city/county lines. Or in some areas right down the middle of a county. This gives them not a monopoly but a duopoly with each side owned by a different company. It becomes harder for the US government to break them up stating that there is no competition, even though there is no real competition. Company A claims that Company B is their direct competitor. Even better are Satellite companies because they offer a "third" alternative. But there is no real competition because A and B have already decided not to play in each others backyard.

The US government wants more home wired and I applaud that. But creating an another bueacracy to acheive that goal is not the way to do it. We have already seen that in other places in the world that broadband speeds are higher than what the cable companies want to roll out. And that the cost of doing so will not be as expensive as the cable companies might say it would be. I even applaud the fact that at least someone is recognizing the "last mile" issue needs to be either home owners issue rather than the cable companies. What I would like to see happen is that a National Broadband policy recognize this but state to the cable companies, thanks for wiring most of the homes but it's time to go in a different direction.

Here's my list:

1. The broadband pipes do belong to the companies that laid them but they have, not should, to charge a fair price for access to them.
   
2. The "last mile" belongs to the homeowner. If they need to be updated then a homeowner should receive some kind of tax credit to update them if needed since this will help the re-sell value of the home.
3. Smaller local companies should be able to lease access to the broadband pipes. They would then re-sell this to the homeowner, at rate that is above the fair price so they can make money off of them. This could also spark competition between companies.
4. Address the issue of all the dark fiber laying around unused that could be used to boost speed. This fiber was laid out but never used. Since the government gave tax credits to lay out the infrastructure then they should force the companies to use them at a fair price.

The policy itself needs to do something that protects the consumer. For far too long the government has created agencies that end up being used to protect the businesses. They have received all the tax credits and breaks to operate and build infrastructue but they have taken advantage of the consumer. That should be reversed. My ideas are not perfect anyone can read this and think that there are problems with it. I agree. But we are losing lost our technical edge in the wider community. The policy needs to be able a) spark true competition, b) create jobs (new companies), and c) make America the best in broadband penetration. But it needs to do this in such a way so that anti-competitive practices that have caused monopolies to be broken up don't exist at the cost expense of the taxpayer. Creating another beaucratic mess it not the way to do that.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Web Apps

Over at InforWorlds channel there is an interesting post about web applications. Neil McAllister gave five reasons for businesses and developers to not use web applications. Cloud computing is a very hot topic. On the one hand you have Microsoft just now stepping their toe in the cloud filled waters; Google has been pushing the cloud to every their users for years now. I have vascilated between using web applications and full-fledged applications. But lately, I've moved all my Google Docs back to my system. Even though my poor G4 PowerMac is quickly losing space, I should be able to purchase a new harddrive at about 500GB for about $100.00. And in some stores, a 1TB harddrive for about $50.00 more. I even downgraded my Gmail account to exclude all but the most basic of features.

Why the change of heart, again? Well, this post by Richard Stallman, the father of the free software movement. And some other concerns that I have had. Mainly, if a company closes their doors then what happens to my data? I don't want to produce a ton of information never to have access to it again. I still use Gmail but I just like Apple Mail more. I use to love using Google Notebook but they let that go. Evernote is now my main note-taking application. Why? Because there is a stand-alone application that I can use to access and store my notes. Now, my notes are still stored in the cloud. But if I'm that concerned about the information then I store it on my system and encrypt it with gpg.

In the long run, the cloud is great for some things but not for everything. Also, I would rather create my own personal cloud on a home server and make it accessible to only my household. And that is something that I can do on my own and makes me feel a bit more secure.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hackerspaces - Can anyone direct me to closest one?

While I was reading boingboing I came across a wonderful post. It was about a new concept coming into its own called hackerspaces. The idea is very simple. A group of do-it-yourselfers (DIYers), also know as hackers, come together and rent a loft space. They then stock it full the items that they made need and tools that they have. They share everything with that space and help each other with projects. A perusal of their wiki and I also discovered that some of them hold classes and even charge membership dues.

The lofts are all over America, and the World. Even in my old <sniff> hometown of San Diego has a hackerspace. I think that the concept is great. I even have decided that I want to rid myself of cable tv and internet. So, in order to do that I need to build a media center with a DVR. It would be great if I could join a hackerspace so that I could get the benefit of someone elses knowledge. I've built machines before but a) it has been a long while and b) I would like to build mine own case, which I've never done before. I never took shop in high school so I never learned how to build basic things with my hands out of wood or metal. I would benefit from a hackerspace but, alas, there is nothing here in Charlotte, NC. There is one in Durham but that's a bit far to go just to build a couple of DVRs.

Still, if I had the time I would definitely try to open one myself.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Testing a new Blog Editor

I've been using Google Docs but recently I've been wanting to try different ways of blogging. This is a test post for ScribeFire via Firefox.