If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:09:16 -0500, "Blueskies"
: wrote in
: :
:
: I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
: rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
: because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.
:
:
...snip..
:
: The one thing everyone agreed on was that the Indiana deal was just a
: prelude to a host of such efforts to come. Across the nation, there is
: now talk of privatizing everything from the New York Thruway to the
: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey turnpikes, as well as of inviting
: the private sector to build and operate highways and bridges from
: Alabama to Alaska. More than 20 states have enacted legislation
: allowing public-private partnerships, or P3s, to run highways. Robert
: Poole, the founder of the libertarian Reason Foundation and a longtime
: privatization advocate, estimates that some $25 billion in
: public-private highway deals are in the works-a remarkable figure
: given that as of 1991, the total cost of the interstate highway system
: was estimated at $128.9 billion.
:

Thanks Larry...

Now, if you don't live on or very near these privatized roads, what will your roads look like? The govment don't do it
anymore. Remember the troll under the bridge? What about the old cattle toll roads?

What keeps the mail delivered to someone way out in the sticks? The USPS. FedEx and UPS don't deliver everywhere, simply
because they could not make a profit at it.

Should that prevent the emergency services for responding? I'm sorry sir, you are outside our area of service. Please
move your house and family back within 25 miles and we will send the ambulance right away...

"scott moore" wrote in message ...
::
:
: And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
: satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
: reads web pages to you.
:
: The government would have got round to giving you satellite delivered
: weather and graphics, certainly by 2040 at the latest.
:
: By the way, all of that graphical weather comes from Nexrad radar, an
: expensive and advanced system YOU paid to build. How much progress has
: the FAA or NOAA made in getting that information to you in the cockpit?
: (without commercial help)
:
: Scott

Exactly my point, we (the US govment) have captured and disseminated the data using tax payer dollars. That data is
given to a private company and then sold back us (the US tax payer) in a different form. That is not right. The
non-responsiveness of the govment is not right either, but just because they are slow to the 'market' does not mean we
should throw out the baby with the bathwater...

"scott moore" wrote in message :
: So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free service, and replace it with a privatized service
for a
: fee. Yes, that is the problem...
:
:
:
: First, you can get your briefing for free on the ground. Second,
: the inflight wx is provided by commercial services that compete
: with each other, not by a monolithic FAA service. This is a far
: better deal than we will ever get from the government, even if
: they privatize it (which just creates yet another monopoly).
:
: Scott



Where does the data for this 'free' ground based briefing come from?

Sam Spade wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
can be, yes.



There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the
more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
can be, yes.




There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all
the more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st
Amendment) provides protected speech only from the government. It
does not apply between citizens, corporations (or similar entities),
or between citizens and corporations (or similar entities.


And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt
Ok, help me.

On Feb 10, 5:41 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:
When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

Actually freedom of speech presumes that everyone does pass judgement
on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech they
encounter - otherwise one my believe everything they heard or read,
for example on the internet.

Sam Spade writes:

Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
both cases.

It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
speech acts mainly to restrain governments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bob Crawford writes:

Actually freedom of speech presumes that everyone does pass judgement
on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech they
encounter - otherwise one my believe everything they heard or read,
for example on the internet.

Freedom of speech doesn't care what people think of what they hear or read, it
only requires that they not attempt to prevent others from writing or
speaking.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.


That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
both cases.

It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
speech acts mainly to restrain governments.


I think we are saying essentially the same thing.

Grumman-581 wrote in
:

Having dealt with quite a few of the various voice response systems over
the years, I would have to say that such a system would pretty much
ensure that I never called for a briefing again... When you have the
repeat the same damn think 10 times and the ****in' system *still*
doesn't recognize what you're trying to say, they're basically ****in'
useless... The menu systems that require touchtone responses are quite a
bit better since they are working with fairly discrete responses that
all phones need to be able to generate in order to even dial a number...

I agree with you - the system should use touch-tone dialing for selection.
IVR as a category predates the voice recognition capability that exists
today. It implies responses by callers to voice prompts, not necessarily
voice responses, though.

My biggest problem with the ones that try to do voice recognition is that
they only seem to work if there is absolutely no background noise, which is
unrealistic to happen in a car or plane (or even at home with the kids)...

That being said, our FSS currently offers callers the ability to hear any
of about 2 dozen weather reports for popular routes and areas. It also
allows callers to file a flight plan as a recording.

I believe the evolution of the system is to voice prompts that allow you to
easily get you the information you need, along with a small group of
national customer support reps who help people who are having trouble from
a single location.