Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Government Your Rights Online

Brain Drain, Admin Failures Threaten the FCC's Role 121

Posted by Soulskill
from the outsource-it-to-india dept.
coondoggie writes "The Federal Communications Commission has brain drain and administration problems that could decrease its effectiveness at a time when advanced service technologies such as wireless and broadband present significant regulatory challenges. On the brain drain front, a report out today (PDF) from watchdogs at the Government Accountability Office stated that from fiscal year 2003 to 2008, the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10%. Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14%. While the total number of engineers and economists in the workforce has decreased from 2003 to 2008, the percentages remained the same. The GAO also criticized the FCC's public comment policy, saying, 'While FCC relies heavily on public input to inform its decisions, it tends to do so without giving the public access to the actual text of a given proposal. If parties are able to submit vague summaries that may not fully reflect meetings between FCC officials and outside parties, then stakeholders will continue to question whether commission decisions are being influenced by information that was not subject to public comment or rebuttal and that, in some cases, is submitted just before a commission vote.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brain Drain, Admin Failures Threaten the FCC's Role

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mewsenews (251487) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @11:49AM (#30833728) Homepage

    Is this the same FCC that took a "save the children" stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back?

    I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism..

    (FCC, free advice, stick to regulating wavelengths and you'll get more support from scientists and engineers)

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by tlhIngan (30335) <[ten.frow] [ta] [todhsals]> on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:04PM (#30833944)

      Is this the same FCC that took a "save the children" stance over some wardrobe malfunction a while back?

      I wonder why intelligent people would flee an organization guided by puritanism..

      (FCC, free advice, stick to regulating wavelengths and you'll get more support from scientists and engineers)

      Except it wasn't the FCC who really wanted to do it, but the fact that a puritanical lobby group got offended, and flooded the FCC with complaints. The Parents Television Council offers ways to easily send in complaints, and it's estimated that 99% of the complaints came from the PTC. Unfortunately, by legislation, the FCC has to act on these complaints, even if they're stupid.

      Source: One boob == 963,000 FCC complaints [arstechnica.com]

      • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:42PM (#30834554) Journal

        Except it wasn't the FCC who really wanted to do it, but the fact that a puritanical lobby group got offended, and flooded the FCC with complaints. The Parents Television Council offers ways to easily send in complaints, and it's estimated that 99% of the complaints came from the PTC.

        IIRC, the FCC has since reformed their counting process specifically because of groups like the PTC.
        The FCC now discounts cookie cutter and form letters because, like you said, they were making up 90%+ of the complaints.

        [Citation Needed] but I can't seem to dig up any articles I had read on the topic.

        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          Ummm, then again, it may be that I got things backwards...
          Which is why I couldn't find any citations to support my claim.

          The change was that the FCC started counting form letters as individual complaints instead of glomming them together as one.
          http://techliberation.com/2009/09/09/more-inflated-fcc-indecency-complaints/ [techliberation.com]

          • On July 1, 2003, the agency began tallying each computer-generated complaint sent to the FCC by any advocacy group as an individual complaint, rather than as one complaint as had been done previously. The advocacy group benefiting from that change had challenged the FCC to make the change by June 30th and boasted later that it was responsible for the FCC's redirection, citing reassurances of FCC commissioners.

          I wonder if the FCC takes into account supportive e-mails and letters it receives in its complaint box.
          If so, maybe an anti-PTC action alert system to flood the FCC with messages supporting

      • I don't believe FCC is obligated to act on complaints - they have to investigate investigate complaints. Whether they take action depends on the circumstances. For example penalizing the network for the wardrobe malfunction was a choice FCC made internally based on an investigation into the facts and their established rules. The investigation was sparked by the complaints. Maybe a pedantic distinction, but there you are..

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      Yeah, it is the same FCC which will enforce the other "Puritan" view called .... "Fairness Doctrine".

      And yes, I agree, stick to regulating the wavelengths and not what rides on them.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)

        by AndersOSU (873247) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:57PM (#30834746)

        There is no fairness doctrine. It's been dead since 1987.

        • It is only MOSTLY dead.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by AndersOSU (873247)

            no.

            It's completely, utterly and totally dead. It's pining for the fjords. It is no more. There is nothing even remotely resembling the fairness doctrine in american media.

            If there were, AM radio would be radically different.

            • by NateTech (50881)

              Radically different, but not what people want to listen to. The audience that buys goods and services of the advertisers, gets what they want.

              • by AndersOSU (873247)

                No disagreement here. I personally don't understand the allure of infotainment, but neither to I understand how American Idol is king of the ratings.

                Here's the thing though. I like the idea of government moderated fairness even less than I like Rush Limbaugh - and that's saying something.

                • by NateTech (50881)

                  I don't because governments are never really "fair" about anything.

                  • by AndersOSU (873247)

                    I should clarify, the government has no buisness deciding what speech is fair.

                    I'm perfectly comfortable, and I even expect the government to define fair housing practices, fair voting practices, fair employment rules, etc.

  • Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14%. I can understand why the FCC needs engineers... but why exactly do they need economists to regulate communication?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quatin (1589389)
      What? What don't they need economists for? The impacts that frequency block control on the economy is huge! You can't go willy nilly assigning chunks of spectrum out without considering the economic impact it will generate.
    • by moogied (1175879)
      Because the frequencys are a limited resource. As such, it drives a very delicate market. Same as "diamonds".

      Diamonds in quotes because that market is artifically limited.

  • by mpapet (761907) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @11:53AM (#30833800) Homepage

    Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes. At what point do Americans call 'enough!' on corporate hegemony?

    Enjoy your corporate deathburger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3pIDSQ1rdA [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      At what point do Americans call 'enough!' on corporate hegemony?

      Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead? Neither options are good, but corporate action only exists if consumers exist or government funnels money to them. I guess love of government, love of the people that can slap you in jail (while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more) on their whim after "justice theater" in the courtroom are just being

      • by copponex (13876)

        Why is it that people are so willing to put themselves under government hegemony instead?

        That is what a government is for - in democracies, to provide a system of organization whereby people, equally represented by a vote each, get together to decide what to do with their resources. It's based on the idea that humans have certain inalienable rights that cannot be trespassed upon by the rich and powerful. (I know, stupid idea - I don't know who came up with it.)

        I guess love of government, love of the people that can slap you in jail (while hating those that charge you more than you like / more than they should for something more) on their whim after "justice theater" in the courtroom are just being fashionable for the times.

        You'll have to clarify yourself. Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that ma

        • by Shotgun (30919)

          News flash: corporations can't do much to you if you don't do business with them.

          Except put you out of business with a hostile takeover, buy your parent company out and fire you, sue you with a team of lawyers that collectively gross in a day what you do in a year, bribe a local politician to falsely imprison you... and that's just to a fellow citizen. God help you if you live in a country with no government large enough to protect your rights.

          But, the government that is supposed to be protecting your rights is the one taking bribes to put you in jail?

          Any corporation could buckle overnight if people acted on principle.

          On this we can definitely agree.

          And the government would topple overnight if people would rise up against it; however, in this case there is the possibility that people would be required to bear arms in order to rise up. We can boycott MSNBC's liberal bias, or we can go to war with Obama's leftist government. Which is easier?

          But people don't care about principle, and the fact that they can't even act in their own self-interest in business shows that democracy itself is untenable.

          And a final point - you state that people can't be good consumers. I believe that they can, but first there has to be some penalty for lying for corporations. There has to be an entity, outside the direct control of corporations, that is itself policed by the press, which can act in meaningful ways to keep them honest.

          So there has to be police that are policed by the press. But, why can the press just police the policed

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            That's just it. People expect the government to be this magical source of goodness and righteousness like a magical deity, somehow outside of the corruption of human behavior, if we only *try* hard enough, yet people can't possibly be good enough consumers to control a free market.

            Then people whine on about fairness and "rights" when they use the words so nebulously they're devoid of meaning. What action is supposed to be "fair?" Of course, I'll get that person's subjective feelings on what "fair" is, wh

            • by NateTech (50881)

              You say that people "can't" do the right thing. I disagree. I use the word "won't". Very different meanings.

            • by copponex (13876)

              That's just it. People expect the government to be this magical source of goodness and righteousness like a magical deity, somehow outside of the corruption of human behavior, if we only *try* hard enough, yet people can't possibly be good enough consumers to control a free market.

              If you were interested in the real issues concerning governance, it would help if you didn't project your emotions onto the viewpoints of others.

              The point can be established, thus far, every successful culture has had a system of government. You are right that America is not a functioning democracy, but as long as the basic rules for a democracy are in place, that can be changed. In more democratic societies, like Britain and Australia (chosen for their cultural similarity), income inequality is better, pov

        • Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple?

          Take away the government enforced patent law and other protections, and Monsanto goes away tomorrow. Or at the very least, changes drastically so customers won't make them go away tomorrow.

      • by NateTech (50881)

        People really don't get this. We all REALLY vote with our DOLLARS. "Evil corporations" that buy off politicians, etc... get the money from CUSTOMERS.

    • Another regulatory agency being gutted right before our eyes. At what point do Americans call 'enough!' on corporate hegemony?

      Maybe when the government starts paying the going rate for skilled jobs that are in demand in the private sector?

  • To have brain drain, one must actually have quality brain to drain.

    Case in point: Kevin Martin. For a while I _really_ wanted to get on live TV just to say, "Fuck Kevin Martin of the FCC. Fuck him in the ass with a big rubber dick, and then pull it out and beat him over the head with it." Definitely not 'fleeting' profanity, and I'm sure Carlin would approve.

    Family Guy's 'PTV' episode (S04E14) had a great musical bit about 'The Freakin' FCC'

    Unfortunately neither the whole ep, or the clip are on Hulu. Ho

  • (wait, nevermind. talking politics on Slashdot is a bad idea.)

    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:29PM (#30834360) Journal

      This all goes back to the days of Bill Clinton. The truth of the matter is, he didn't have sexual relations with any woman. There are even rumours that he is still a virgin. Chelsea is actually the result of Hillary reproducing asexually, under the reason that no one would want to regularily. This genetic mutation is considered an evolutionary advantage to some, so valuable that they want to keep it secret. This is why there was so much news surrounding Jenna Bush and none around Chelsea.

      They ran some tests on CC. She has shown not only the ability to reproduce look alikes (see Hilary Duff), but also other another mutant power; laser eyes. Cyclops is actually an inspired character based on Chelsea. She currently works at Cern, powering the LHC with her amazing gifts. But as we all know, not everything is as it seems. We've all heard the stories about how the LHC is going to create black holes and destroy the Earth. It IS going to happen, in 2012, its a proven fact. It's all part of the Democrats plan. Why you ask? Despite beating the Republicans in the elections its never enough. They held a secret meeting in a hotel board room where they discussed ways to get rid of the Republicans for good. The vote was unanimous: Destroy the Earth.

      So we were completely safe for 8 years while George was in power. He of course staged 9-11 to start the War on Terror so that he could reduce the amount of liquids allowed on airplanes, thus keeping the American population from over-hydration. A disguised way to protect us all from the looming threat of too much water. Water, angry in a fit of rage, retaliated with Hurricane Katrina.

      And now we've got Obama back in power. How can you be certain he is in on the plan to black-hole the Earth? CHANGE. You know what another word for Change is? MUTATE. Remember Chelsea? Bingo! And look at those ears! They can't be natural! I know what you are thinking: What does all of this have to do with the FCC - the one loose knot left to tie. All the Engineers are leaving: Why? Joining CERN at the LHC. All the Economists are leaving: Why? They are needed to keep up the ruse that the economy is getting better, just long enough to keep order until the LHC can create a black hole. Of course the FCC's Administration is failing. It is under direct attack by the worlds most organized, powerful, and underhanded groups. A group which is hellbent on making sure the entire world is destroyed. And nothing, no silly Commission started a long time ago, is going to stand in their way.

      Ladies and Gentlemen, its already too late.

      • A disguised way to protect us all from the looming threat of too much water.

        The threat of too much non-distilled water.

      • Wow. Somebody picked up some bad milk for their Cheerios today. Next time, make sure the carton is sealed.
  • ...the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10%. Similarly, the overall number of economists decreased by 14%

    Sounds like we're well on our way towards the national goal of "career choices" limited to creating web sites or making something Oprah likes.

    • by Smallpond (221300)

      You're missing the really exciting news in the article. The number of engineers at the FCC has increased 4% relative to the number of economists.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:15PM (#30834132)

    "...from fiscal year 2003 to 2008, the number of engineers at the FCC decreased by 10%."

    Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with OUTSOURCING, would it?

    Some idiot with a microphone will soon start blaming the education system. It's NOT the education system. It's the MONEY system. No rational, self-interested human is going to spend a lot of time and money to enter a field where they get to compete with people making $12 per hour. If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer. PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      FACT: In 2005 the FCC outsourced it's entire IT operations to a single large federal contractor called SI International in order to save lots of money. Existing federal employees were given decreased roles or given the boot. That's probably around the time things started hitting the fan. Bad decisions lead to their current situation.

      • by ArsonSmith (13997)

        Of course, being a government agency, bad decisions don't affect it as a whole. Some people may get fired some things may change new people will come in and make the same bad decisions. It's not like the FCC is going to go out of business.

    • by scamper_22 (1073470) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:30PM (#30834386)

      The problem is the rest of society is not paid a wage-arbitrated market value :P
      A large part of the economy is the public sector which just negotiates its pay with government and is not market based.
      Doctors and lawyers limit their market supply and increase their demand via regulations ...

      As such an engineer faces a severe imbalance in the West. They are talented enough to enter one of these jobs with an inflated pay scale not tied to the market. That is where they are going.

      If we were all paid a market arbitrated wage, then there would be no problem. The market would in fact sort out these kinds of issues. Globally, I am probably worth $15 dollars an hour as an engineer. Globally, a teacher is probably worth $8 dollars an hour... There is a reason most western countries have severe structural deficits.

      That portion of their society receiving non market arbitraged wages is grown too large relative to the market wages... and have not been corrected.
      As Detroit's economy collapsed and high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs were lost... should that not have translated to lower wages for the public sector, doctors, lawyers... in that region?

      We need to pick one system and stick to it as much as possible.
      Either we let freedom reign and let people pay others what they think they are worth (market system).
      Or we have some abstract pay scale where people negotiate their wages with the government.

      Either way, it has to apply to most of society equally.

      • I have no problem with wage-arbitrage as long as it's concomitant with price-arbitrage. To some extent, this is the case, with the fairly major exceptions of real estate, energy, pharmaceutical products and local services such as medical services.

        Bottom line? If they want to pay me Indian wages, I'd better be paying Indian prices.

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      What their worth IS what the market will bare. If you think you're worth more than go somewhere else and do it. If what you do is worth more, then sell it your self and/or start your own company and compete. Don't whine because of achieving what you're actually capable of rather than what you dreamed to do.

      • When I'm able to outsource my housing, local services, pharmaceuticals, etc. to match the levels paid in other cheaper countries, I'll take that statement seriously.

        Bonus points for figuring out why prices in the USA are still high.

        • by ArsonSmith (13997)

          Sorry to cut and paste, but to answer the bonus question:

          "What their worth IS what the market will bare."

          I grantee that if nobody could afford to buy a house that the prices would go down.

          • Incomplete.

            The reason everyone else can and a competent engineer can't is....

            • by ArsonSmith (13997)

              1) Better life decisions
              2) More productive product
              3) Older and saved more
              4) Just plain lucky and won lottery
              5) slightly less lucky but did well in investments
              6) curbs bad habbits (drinking, smoking)
              7) limits partying to a reasonable level for their income

              should I go on?

    • If the government is serious about getting more engineers in the USA, there's a simple, easy answer. PAY THE ENGINEERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH, not "What the wage-arbitraged market will bear."

      The trouble is, that's what they are worth; and I say this as an engineer.

      • OK, then in another dozen years or so, you'll have almost no CS or engineering graduates coming out of USA schools. No engineering innovation. We'll make our money on farm products and finance products :O

        But hey, if the USA can't live up to free market economic standards, well then by golly, it needs to declare bankruptcy and sold piecemeal to other countries like China and India. It's the sacred capitalist way! Make sure you guarantee it by voting Republican next November.

        • OK, then in another dozen years or so, you'll have almost no CS or engineering graduates coming out of USA schools. No engineering innovation. We'll make our money on farm products and finance products :O

          Or, demand will outstrip supply and salaries will go up. Part of the problem is many engineering students study what is hot and ignore market realities. When I worked in Silicon Valley, companies were desperately looking for EE's that could design analog systems; and paying big bucks. Friends in the utility industry have raised concerns that there will not be enough power and nuc engineers to meet future demands as the current crop retires; let alone meet anticipated growth needs.

          But hey, if the USA can't live up to free market economic standards, well then by golly, it needs to declare bankruptcy and sold piecemeal to other countries like China and India. It's the sacred capitalist way! Make sure you guarantee it by voting Republican next November.

          It isn't so much an R vs

          • "...Do you really think for a minute if the government set engineering wages we'd not see companies move abroad where cheaper engineers are available?"

            No, probably not, and I concede to the inevitability of market forces.

            What galls me, however, is that everyone so mindlessly accepts the dichotomy of "The market does it or the government does it." I find the lack of imagination or thought depressing.

            What I still suspect will happen is that within the next 50 years or so we get useful human-ish AI, after whic

            • "...Do you really think for a minute if the government set engineering wages we'd not see companies move abroad where cheaper engineers are available?"

              No, probably not, and I concede to the inevitability of market forces.

              What galls me, however, is that everyone so mindlessly accepts the dichotomy of "The market does it or the government does it." I find the lack of imagination or thought depressing.

              I don't think it's an either or; rather people become enamored of a "solution" and fail to consider the ramifications and behaviors it will drive. Afterwords, people say "We didn't think people would do THAT," or "That's not we intended." They seem truly surprised that most people will act in their own best interest.

          • by NateTech (50881)

            Demand already outstrips supply - my company has 20 open positions in Atlanta, GA. They can't find QUALIFIED candidates for most of them.

            • Demand already outstrips supply - my company has 20 open positions in Atlanta, GA. They can't find QUALIFIED candidates for most of them.

              Is it that they don't get enough qualified applicants or that that qualified applicant's aren't willing to work for the offered salary?

              It's an honest question, not a snide remark. I've been approached for jobs where when I explain salary expectations many companies say they can't meet them. OTOH, I know of cases where companies simply don't get qualified applicants despite getting a long list of resumes.

        • by NateTech (50881)

          And what would Democrats do differently, tax everyone to make sure we all have a better life in a competitive world? LOL. That only goes so far. (One term, usually.)

    • ...because they have to have somebody on hand who understands the simple fact that what the market will bear IS what engineers are worth. By definition.
  • There was someone at the FCC that had brains? You would never have known it. ugh, forget it.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    We should deregulate all of it at let private enterprise work it out through competition and unrestrained capitalism. That's the answer to everything. I know, Fox News told me so. What, worried about your privacy? Hire a privacy consultant from a company that makes money protecting your privacy. It's the American Way (and why should I pay for your privacy anyway?). Worried about pr0n broadcasts? Why, they'd make more money than damn near anything else. And after all, money is the only thing that matters. Oh
    • by pclminion (145572)

      What is private enterprise going to do when some jackass starts spewing noise all over a chunk of spectrum? Hire the mafia to take care of it? Send a mob with pitchforks and torches to tear down the antennas? When I get pissed off at you and decide to park a van on top of a nearby hill and blast your house with cellphone signal, completely destroying your ability to make calls, who are you going to turn to? Batman?

      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        What is private enterprise going to do when some jackass starts spewing noise all over a chunk of spectrum?

        Wait, how is this different from what Rush Limbaugh does now?

        And I should point out that your sarcasm detector appears to be faulty.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by pclminion (145572)

          And I should point out that your sarcasm detector appears to be faulty.

          It's not faulty, it was just suffering unacceptable interference from an unshielded device

  • Take a number, FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:37PM (#30834502) Homepage

    From late 2007 on, the federal government has been "quietly" laying off contractors left and right. It just so happens that most federal engineers are contractors...

    Bitch all you want about the state of things, but the fact is that it's cheaper for the federal government to outsource this work. Contractors can be fired without mercy and don't require a pension (more pay up front in exchange for no pension is a deal for the tax payers, especially as life spans climb.)

  • by Gerafix (1028986) on Wednesday January 20, 2010 @12:56PM (#30834728)
    Seriously. The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC. The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want. FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.
    • Troll. FCC is staffed with a bunch of people from different backgrounds and beliefs - it's a pretty diverse place. FCC leadership varies and some of them from the past might be characterized along the lines you suggest.

    • Seriously. The Corporations know what the American people want more than the FCC. The Corporations will give America all the sex, drugs, and American Idol they want. FCC? Friggin' bunch of crazy Jesus freak Catholics pretty much.

      Actually, most of the Catholic's I've met have no problem with nudity, alcohol or people enjoying themselves. The Baptists, however, seem to be in a constant state of worry that someone, somewhere, is having fun and that might lead to dancing...

  • Split "censoring airwaves" and "managing frequency blocks". I know they sound similar, but when it was mostly about managing what went where in the spectrum, there was cred (sometimes grudging) from those transmitting. There was some hate, but kind of like hot rodders v highway cops. Censorship of what has already been let onto a frequency or spectrum gets no real respect - you have to pay for talent in full dollars with a little extra for the anti-cred you get for being involved in it. Split them into two
  • The FCC has effectiveness? (not joking)

    They're more like one of the examples of "lack of".

    The timelines they use for decisions & the resources they use are & have been for years generally the models of "How Not To Do Things".

  • The FCC is unconstitutional -- the legislature gave wide-ranging power to an unelected bureaucracy, which it is not authorized to do (not that the US Constitution matters a damn nowadays)

    The FCC does nothing to protect my life, liberty, or property. In 99% of the USA, there is so much wide-open bandwidth, there will never be a serious problem with conflicting signals in the electromagnetic spectrum.

    If it were not a Federal crime, I'd probably throw up an antenna and broadcast community radio in my town. But

    • by NateTech (50881)

      You might re-think that part about them not protecting your life, liberty, or property.

      Without the FCC, pirates and others would find the "juicy" portions of upper VHF, UHF, and high UHF spectrum work really well for their "Billy-Bob's Hilltop Radio", and Public Safety agencies would have no protected spectrum with with to dispatch Police, Fire, and Ambulances to your House.

      Without the NTIA working with the FCC, there'd be no way to keep civilians off of NTIA/Federal/Military spectrum, and things like searc

      • by Plugh (27537)

        There is no "balancing act" when one of the sides involves has an armed police force and is willing to use it to ensure their opinions win the dispute.

        I'm not grateful to the FCC that they "let" me use my WiFi router, any more than a slave should be "grateful" master lets him have his own hut.

        You know, cannons kill people -- even innocent bystanders -- pretty easily when misused. Yet somehow Thomas Jefferson didn't find it necessary to give the Federal government a monopoly on cannon design and production.

        I

        • by NateTech (50881)

          Okay, obviously you're a "big L" Libertarian who thinks roads, schools, fire departments, and police are unnecessary for modern society. Sorry I tried to have a rational conversation with you.

  • This is an example of Cognitive Regulatory Capture, a term recently applied to the US Fed and Wall Street by Willem Buiter, a British economist. He said:

    The Fed listens to Wall Street and believes what it hears. This distortion into a partial and often highly distorted perception of reality is unhealthy and dangerous.

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/08/fireworks-at-jackson-hole-buiter-lets.html [economicpo...ournal.com]

    This is what happens to many regulatory bodies, like the US Fed, FCC, US Patent Office, SEC, FDA, FER

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Working...