Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality: Lobbyist McCurry Raises Ire
BBCWatcher writes "Mike McCurry, former Clinton Administration Press Secretary turned telecommunications industry lobbyist, reacts to his many new critics in the battle over Net Neutrality: "There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum." Among others, top political blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga responded swiftly to McCurry's latest assertions: "What a dishonest piece of sh[..] McCurry has become. This is an anti-corporatist jihad, is it? Is that why we are aligned with Microsoft, Google, and eBay? And when did the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America join the 'left'? What a pathetic attempt to marginalize those of us working for net neutrality....McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man.""
Plenty of democrats are paid by corporations. But the unions continue to contribute a heck of a lot, as well as other groups who aren't great fans of corporate power. There's no reason for democrats to shy away from criticising corporations just because corporations fund some Dems, and some middle-of-the-roaders aren't opposed to corporation-bashing. OTOH, the reflexive bash-the-corporation responses that some Dems exhibit (and Republicans too - espc over oil prices, where "price gouging" - aka charging what the market will bear - gets screamed each time the gas price rises due to exogenous factors) do not make them seem very credible. It's hard to trust people who have routine scapegoats; it suggests they don't think enough.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
A clinton administration official demonstrates that his only loyalty was to the dollar. The worst you could say was he emulated his bosses.
Next thing you'll tell me is that Al Gore Didn't really invent the internet, or Bill Clinton went out and lobbied for an arab nation to take over Americas ports. I would be Shocked just Shocked.
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations,"
Yup, by his definition they are "good".. By the rest of us they are paid off hooligans trading personal wealth and power for our freedoms and rights, and our freedoms and rights are a no cost giveaway for these guys.
Good is a relative term and it has been proven for thousands of years that those in power have a very different view of good and evil than the rest of the population.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's the result of the competition for a new skin that we had a bit ago. See cmdrtaco's journal.
Frankly, I didn't think this was the best of the final 3 (to me, there was clearly a nicer skin).
What I'm really waiting for, is our new-found CSS capabilities used to allow user-selectable stylesheets. It can't be too hard; after all, they hacked the stylesheet for April 1 (when it went all pink).
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
Corporations that
-Have explicitly said they plan to make Google et al pay twice to use "their" pipes
-Have already blocked e.g. Vonage
-Have (unconfirmed, someone check) reserved 80% of the bandwidth in their fiber for their own TV service
-Have constantly said "There's no problem; the free market will work it out". Which to me translates as "We just want to make sure we have the power to degrade everyone's net service in order to benefit ourselves; we're not actually going to do if of course..."
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Not democratic reps. Accepting bribes etc.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Is this official confirmation that not only do the corporations run the GOP, but also the "Democratic" party? I'm glad we have it out in the open.
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
The Kox piece has useful, good info in it. Give it a read. W quotes Jesus; that doesn't make him (W) God, though.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
No comrade the Dailykos is a counterrevolutionary reactionary blog. Clearly his allignment with politically recidivist elements shows he is nothing but a tool of control for the masses. Clearly you should be modded flamebait for making a statement so devoid of observable evidence.
#1. Yes, DailyKos is a Democratic site. But at the same time, the DKos community is pretty much committed to lessening the influence of a whole wide variety of interest groups from the political process and increasing the power that the individual citizen has, on both sides of the aisle. From Unions straight through to Corporations.
#2. Generally speaking, wider "left" political blogsophere supports net neutrality very strongly. And the reason for that, is actually a traditionally centrist viewpoint, namely in order to maximize the effect and forces of a free and open market. Eliminating net neutrality is a great threat to putting a full stop to innovation in business and technology on the internet. It stops new players and technologies from taking those first baby steps out.
You have one area of business with high barriers to entry and a few companies, and you have another area of business with much lower barriers to entry and new companies forming every day?
Which is the important one to protect here?
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
Your point is?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Really? Well, when a few contracters working for Blackwell were killed, burned, then hanged in Fallujah while guarding a simple shipment of a cooking oven, Markos's reply was "f'em, let them hang". Wishing death upon another. Sorry, but Markos is pathetic. That said, the net needs to be left alone, and run as it is now.
I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that quotes like "What a dishonest piece of sh[..] McCurry has become." do nothing but make you look like your foaming at the mouth. If you read the rest of that bloggers post (another slashdot member posted it above) you'll really see my point. Argument is good, but uncontrolled and uncensored anger will never be taken seriously in politics.
Of course I agree with this blogger, but I don't think he is doing our cause any good by spouting off like this. On Slashdot we always poke fun at corporate bigwigs with anger issues(look at Steve Balmer), why should bloggers be any different. That said, I of course agree with net neutrality like anybody in their right mind would... unless of course they work for said corporations.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
Article text via bugmenot:
WASHINGTON -- Former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry is no stranger to well-aimed political attacks. After all, he held down the briefing room podium for Bill Clinton during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a task he compared to being a "human pinata."
He was called "a stonewalling administration mouthpiece" who "perfected a plethora of dodges" and "was a master at speaking with charm, wit, self-deprecation and ease -- yet saying nothing."
ADVERTISEMENT
But even McCurry admitted surprise at the verbal shellacking he's received on the Internet lately. More shocking to McCurry is the end of the political spectrum doing most of the name calling: his traditionally supportive left.
It's all because of his latest job working for AT&T Inc., BellSouth Corp. and some other communications companies to shape public opinion on perhaps the most controversial aspect of telecom legislation moving through Congress.
"I've faced far worse in the past," McCurry said of the criticism. "Although the bad names I got called were from the other side."
McCurry is co-chairman of Hands Off the Internet, a group arguing against so-called Net neutrality rules -- federal regulations preventing phone and cable companies from charging extra to zip some high-bandwidth services through their wires faster than others.
The group is squarely in the middle of a brewing battle over the issue against big Internet companies, such as Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. With many congressional Democrats and liberal bloggers supporting Net neutrality, McCurry finds himself opposing his historical allies.
In a highly charged election year, McCurry has been branded a turncoat, a Democratic Jedi lost to the dark side at a time of looming crisis across the Internet.
The intense and personal flogging -- partly provoked by McCurry's sharp responses -- shows how contentious Net neutrality has become for some Internet users.
He's been called a "sellout" and "stooge," a purveyor of "dishonest hackery" and "classic flack misdirection," and an "industry sock puppet."
"I think people are reacting not just to the issue but to their disdain for a top-tier Democrat shilling in such an overt way for big-money interests," said David Sirota, a liberal political blogger and author of "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government -- and How We Take It Back."
McCurry said the response to his new job demonstrated the "constant jihad" of 21st century politics and the ongoing struggle between the liberal and centrist wings of the Democratic Party.
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."
McCurry is one of those Democrats.
After leaving the White House in 1998, McCurry became a partner at Public Strategies Group in Washington, developing communications strategies for corporate and nonprofit clients.
He signed on earlier this year with a coalition of telecommunications companies battling an effort by large Internet companies to get Congress to pass rules that would outlaw any preferential treatment of data over the Internet.
Some phone company executives want to charge extra to guarantee fast and reliable delivery of video and other data-heavy applications.
As word spread of McCurry's role, bloggers started ripping him.
Last month, McCurry ripped back.
"On Net neutrality, I feel like screaming 'puh-leeeze,' " he wrote on the Huffington Post, where he sometimes blogs. "The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky."
He slammed his critics for "worshipping" Vint Cerf, a co-founder of the Internet and now a Google executive who has testified to Congress about the need for Net neutrality rules. McCurry said Cerf had "a clear
It would seem to me that he's suggesting that people who are half way between the Republicans and the Democrats are the middle of the political spectrum.
From my vantage point, I can hardly see the difference between the USA's 2 main parties.
Seems to me that Daily Kos is a website that's brought up quite frequently in Slashdot (political) stories these days, many times for an opinionated view. Why is this the case and not with, let's say - Redstate? I know that Kos is a reader of Slashdot, but I don't think that has anything to do with it.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
...want to destroy???
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
C'mon, folks: the words "press secretary" are simply code for "weasel." Anyone who thinks otherwie -- and mind you, this is totally regardless of party affiliation -- is being silly. The one and only press secretary for whom I hold any respect is Reagen's, one Jim Brady. During the assassination attempt, he was shot in the head, with substantial brain damange. The work he's done to control the unfettered access to handguns is nothing short of remarkable; he and his wife are to be commended. All other press secreteries are simply PR figureheads, who never -- not ever -- present their own views, if, indeed, they even have any. (A fine and juicy movie that deals with similar people is Thank You for Smoking. See it.)
I wish conservatives would stop attacking the messenger instead of the message. Look, are you for or against the message daily kos is saying?
If the message is correct, it shouldn't matter who's saying it.
Offhand....
The biggies I can see are VoIP and Streaming Audio/Video. Those are the obvious ones.
However, from comments the telco industry has made, it seems that they're going to play hardball with this. So more than likely any business who tries to operate via the internet will need to pay the telcos to be able to do it.
The problem I see isn't with for example, EBay being charged. The problem I see is the sucessor to Ebay getting charged, and because of that is unable to get off the ground.
Hello? "Birds of a feather flock together." Social groups, networks, etc., tend to attract like-minded people. And guess what? Slashdot works on submissions from its readerbase. If you see a good story on a site, SUBMIT IT. Regardless of political affiliation. If you don't submit, you can't acq... no, wait, that doesn't work. But don't bitch if you ain't submitting.
One of the big mistakes of the Net Neutrality discussion is that is has boiled down to a Legislation v No Legislation battle.
If you take away the legislation part of this discussion I'm not sure that the lefties and free market guys wouldn't swap positions on Net Neutrality.
The push for legislation has steered this discussion more than the issue itself.
As I see it, there is already many ways to purchase better access to your site. You can set up multiple servers throughout the network. You can buy or hire your own pipes, or even lease some bandwidth from an existing pipe, and carry your data on it. (I have read reports that google is doing just that with 'dark fibre'). If a megacorp wants to get better QOS for their customers, they can buy it, and the large telcos can sell it to them.
Surely this obvious fact renders the arguments against NN null and void?
Of course, most here believe, (and I among them) that this is about taking control of our internets, and preventing all the inovative things that are threatening the status quo that is making the existing systems rich.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
It's a good thing that the Democrats are "loyal to the dollar" because they have delivered economic growth and budget surplusses over the last 100 years, while Republicans pretty consistently delivered huge budget deficits and economic decline.
Anonymous wrote
I wish conservatives would stop attacking the messenger instead of the message. Look, are you for or against the message daily kos is saying? If the message is correct, it shouldn't matter who's saying it.
The message is shock that a democrat would sell out the people and the country.
This message is hillarious, its every bit as funny as mentioning that bush has accomplished quite alot as president and then seeing the democrats in the room have epileptic fits.
Its every bit as funny as watching the noted lefty Kos be so concerned about who is paying a person, rather than what he has to say.
And whats most funny is watching the left do everything the can only accuse the right of doing but not demonstrate.
Past Hundred years ???
Clintons surplus was non existent (see counting social security taxes as income and not counting the debt). The last real surplus was under Eisenhower and had a Republican congress.
National unemployment rate at 4.7 percent or full employment, gotta enjoy that decline.
Sir despite the above I will concede you the debate for I am crippled in that I argue from facts.
Isn't this the same history ever? Why this appear to be news? http://perdichizzi.com.ar/
Actually, it was
Mercenaries. Must be nice to be able to redefine the language for one's convenience.
Who the hell modded this insightful? Anyone who uses the phrase "liberal left," and then calls Slashdot a "party," is anything but insightful. This doesn't rise above an ideological thumbing of the nose, with all the insights that entails.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Women? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
More proof that all web sites that allow posting eventually degrade into stupid political party bickering forums.
The source of the comment is enough for your outright dismissal, I see. I can understand that: getting all sticky having an actual argument is so gauche.
My book, podcast
More to the point, shouldn't "BBCWatcher" be quoting ... I dunno ... the BBC and not some mouth-frothing from a blogoloony bin? I demand that he be re-nicked.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Exactly! AT&T and Verizon only have YOUR best interests at heart in opposing network neutrality.
> bush has accomplished quite alot as president and then seeing the democrats in the room have epileptic fits.
The medical term is "gelastic seizure", more commonly known as laughter epilepsy.
But the discussion of what is going on in this nation has become so distorted that I suppose people on the right can't even figure out what people on the left are talking about anymore, and it may be mostly because you're letting Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly tell you what we think.
My book, podcast
It is obvious that the education system of the Imperialistic Americans has failed you. You are seeing things that are obviously not there, if not checked soon you will be speaking of leftist bias in the press and wondering how when one president kills thousands by sanctions and missile attacks but accomplishes nothing he is a hero but when another actually liberates people he is a murderer. We Must get you to the re-education program immediately.
On a serious note you must be new here, Slashdot is much like an echo chamber. If the facts of your comment aren't liked its obvious that you are provoking an argument. Have links that show global warming isn't the fault of fat rich people driving SUV's just so they can make poor people feel bad you must be a troll.
If youre centrist, libertarian or just non Ideological I would suggest growing a thick skin and understanding that the more you demonstrate that there is more to the world than the slashbots comprehend the more they will hate you for it.
A lot of the network neutrality supporters don't even understand the issue at all. Take this for example, where the NYT and a lot of bloggers think of this as an attack on the web, as though telecoms really want to block off websites instead of regulate bandwidth to things that are going to consume terabytes or more of bandwidth like hi-def video services.
The approach that would work best for assuaging free speech concerns is to beef up common carrier laws. Extend common carrier status laws to the point that any ISP or telecom that blocks legal speech in the United States loses all common carrier protection through every service it provides. Yes, make it a legal corporate death penalty statute so that the MPAA and RIAA can literally sue Verizon into irrecoverable bankrupcy through the DMCA if they start playing speech king-maker.
And here's the funny thing about the "democracy" angle. When domain names were "democratically" controlled, they were much more expensive than they are today. Democracy sucks ass at allocating resources compared to a competitive free market. I'll take my chances with the market over protections for either side, thank you.
I read the wikipedia write-up on Net Neutrality but it looks to me like it means whatever you want it to mean. So if someone says "I support Network Neutrality" here on slashdot, what does that mean to us?
Personally, I oppose legislation governing traffic and I want ISPs to give equal priority to each packet/frame/whatever that they handle -- so do I support "Net Neutrality"?
All comments welcome -- flames too -- I'm lost.
TIA
What a dishonest piece of shit McCurry has become....McCurry is now a sad, sad, pathetic man. Completely stripped of all goodwill he had built over the years....McCurry, lying sack of shit that he has become....
Don't hold back on the character assassination there Markos. However, if you read through his blog post it seems to be pretty well deserved. McCurry does seem to have run out of arguments on the issue in question and is now resorting to "Well, these people must just be anti-corporation lefties", somewhat ignorant of the fact that many corporations are seriously against all this. It would be hugely detrimental to Google
"The internet has always had rules. One of those rules is that even if you own a pipe, you're not allowed to tell people what they can put through that pipe. You can't block web sites, you can't say 'don't stream video', and you can't dictate what people and can't say. You do have to pay for the pipe you use; Google pays millions a month on one end, and millions of consumers pay smaller amounts ($20-$60) a month on the other. But no one can tell you what you can do with those pipes. It's very much the opposite of cable TV. There are no gatekeepers, and that's by design. This has created a highly competitive marketplace."
This is the way the internet works, and even if the Telcos get what they want the internet will definitely not work like this. There is simply no other way. It will simply collapse and people will bypass the telcos and go their own way, or the internet in the US certainly would be non-existant for most ordinary citizens while other countries surge ahead. Anyway, one can see why the telcos are reacting badly because in the long-run they are simply on a hiding to nothing, but it really doesn't matter one bit how much they spend. The only certainty in life and in business is change.
What youre saying is correct but wrong. Youre proposals would increase a sites availibility on the network in general but it does nothing if the end of the pipe decides to shake you down for your lunch money.
And the government does? come now. Remember who owns the government. When it is private corporations, I can at least run my own T3s and route around the problem.
Democrat, Republican I don't see any difference. Hillary will be back in power in '08 and nothing will change. Liberties will be taken, taxes will continue to go up, the border won't be secured, troops will still be overseas, the deficit will climb and the debt won't be paid off. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton! Remember everyone to vote straight ticket everytime and never, ever vote third party! The "other" party is nothing but pure evil incarnate! STRAIGHT TICKET ONLY! THIS TIME IT WILL WORK, WE PROMISE!
Well that was news
According to Congressional Budget Office (reported by Reuters in 2004, you can probably find the graph if you search for it), the only president that has had any significant budget surplus since 1963 was Bill Clinton. And if you want to argue that Clinton's budget surplus wasn't real, then the figures for the Republican presidents are even more disastrous than they were reported to be.
The Republican pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and anti-growth policies is also illustrated at the state level: there is a huge net flow of funds from Democratic states to Republican states.
Republicans like to talk a lot about growth and fiscal responsibility, but in reality, what Republicans primarily deliver is handouts to the rich, bloated government, and restrictions on personal freedoms.
It would be nice to have true conservative government: government that is frugal, government that respects traditional liberties, and government that limits its own size and scope; unfortunately, Republicans are the antithesis of that. The problem with Republican rhetoric isn't even that their criticism of Democrats is wrong, it's that they themselves are even worse.
At least have the stones to attach your name to your racist, ignorant comment. Or did you not cut the holes in your white hood large enough, causing them to obscure the "Login" box?
Really? Did we need more proof of how corrupt our government is, do our politicians actually have to stand up and flat out say they are corrupt now and act proud of the fact that they are all in the pay of various corporate interests and not doing squat in the interests of the People?
I know its not just me. The "Hollywood Greed Problem" is getting worse. Just from today and yesterday.
This is a problem.
I dont remember the fight going on so many fronts at once a few years ago. It didnt seem like they were pressing in some new avenue every month. These _are_ serious issues, too. Losing one of these does restrict my freedoms and dramaticall impact the way I live my life.
What is the right response to this? I contribute to the EFF. I call my representatives, as if that mattered. What more can be done to make my position not only heard, but considered, and ultimately put other persons in agreement with it. What are other slashdotters doing to accomplish this?
This is a falsehood. Whoever told you this was either lying to you or is also misinformed.
2. This is the base that wants immedi
Well, I want immedi too, whatever that is. Any right-thinking person wants them some immedi.
3. This is the base that wants abortion on demand for underage girls without parental or legal notification
It's not quite that stark, although a small subsection are like that. Most of the base want want the majority of Americans want: Legal abortion as a choice. Only a minority of Americans want something else.
4. This is the base that wants to raise taxes to promote economic growth
Curious how lowering taxes since 2001 has lowered economic growth, with the amount of tax money taken in by the government being lower today than it was back in 2001, despite all these years of "economic recovery." Funny how that always works this way.
5. This is the base that applauds when dick durbin and jack murtha compare american troops to nazis
This is a falsehood. Whoever told you this was either lying to you or is also misinformed.
I think Net Neutrality is a 'trap' of some sorts. Whether it's trying to peg market prices for bandwidth at a certain level, to which both content consumers and content producers 'equally share' the cost, or whether it's some FCC thug sharpening his claws to dig into the carcass of the most contriversal websites online today, it does not bode well to take this issue lightly.
:)
My take is this, Net Neutrality sounds great on the surface, but here's why I don't like it; if you are a content producer you should pay for the bandwidth that is allocated for your content, period and end of story. All the analogies of the Internet being like a superhighway is flawed since most highways, even in Hong Kong and Japan [Tokyo] are still publically owned and developed. The Internet by comparison has been essentially private for almost a decade with MCI, Sprintlink, and etc laying down the vast bulk of the bandwidth carrying lines. Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value. All this may sound like evil evil 'neo-con/neo-lib' propaganda, but look at the folks taking the affirming side of Net Neutrality; Google, Microsoft, and etc. These are CONTENT PRODUCERS, and as such stand to gain everything if they don't have to carry the bulk of the cost of using their share of the bandwidth accolated. [WARNING: ANALOGY AHEAD] It's sorta like saying because Bill Gates eats at McD's once in a while, that I ought to foot twenty five cents on my bill for my meal just so he get 'equal access' to his Big Mac. And that may also be not entirely accurate either, but this issue sure smacks of it. I, for one, don't feel like paying for the content of others that I don't use such as Microsoft [MSN Spaces, MSN messenger, etc...] or the other content providers to which I do not visit nor link to. I'll sure pay for Google, but then again I thought those stupid text ads, which once in a while were useful [oddly] in my online shopping took care of the cost of the bandwidth, and provided a decent profit for Google's shareholders. If these content producers can't accept they are going to pay for their operating costs, then I might be the first to turn off my PC and kill my ISP account just on principle... Then again, who is John Galt?
-- Bridget
Man, I'd love to see you experience the "personal inconvenience" of being shot in the head.
The only thing Dean is executing is the Democratic Party and it's voting base.
Remember, this is the guy who raised $60 million in 2000 and had only a handful of convention votes to show for it. He kept no books, so no one knows on what or where the money was spent. Deans spends money like a drunken social worker.
The Dems are in bad financial shape right now, they're raising funds OK. It's just that the money disappears as soon as it arrives, with no explanation.
If the Dems had a lick of sense - and they don't -, they'd get rid of Dean. Dean is Rove's best friends.
This is the base who's wondering why Bush slept at the switch for six years and then suddenly discovered this highly-divisive issue when his poll numbers were tanking. They're here. They are part of the economy. They are here SOLELY because they have discovered that employers will hire them -- and it is to the exploitative employers that the "base" directs our ire. These employers have lived in an atmosphere of wink-and-nod enforcement of immigration. We've had a global amnesty before -- it's a way to reset the system and make it honest. If you think you can jerk 11 or 12 million people out of our country without a noticable economic impact and also without initiating a concentration-camp style deathmarch you're dreaming. But what's going on has nothing to do with any kind of "gathering threat" and everything to do with pushing people's panic buttons to get them to the polls. See last year's gay marriage threat.
2. This is the base that wants immedi
This is the base that wants their public leaders to speak in complete, intelligible sentences.
3. This is the base that wants abortion on demand for underage girls without parental or legal notification
This is the base that wonders why the same people who insist we ban abortion won't stand up for readily-available birth control. This is the same base that views with something approaching complete revulsion the recent statements by scions of the religious community that vaccines for STD's are tantamount to a greenlight for sex. This is the base that can pretty easily see that the issue has nothing to do with "pro-life" and everything to do with people of one religion inserting their moral views into the legal code in violation of just about everything this country stands for.
This is the base that deplores legalized abortion but despises even more the inevitibility of illegal abortion that a full ban would bring, and would like to see some evidence-based strategy to reduce unwanted pregancy, rather than "abstience-only" programs based on religious flummery and wishful thinking.
4. This is the base that wants to raise taxes to promote economic growth
Clinton raised taxes. It certainly didn't kill economic growth. Don't tell me the 90's boom had anything to do with Reagan because that's been repeatedly debunked.
Bush cut taxes. We're stuck in stagflation now, and the dollar is crashing, and the national debt will be paid off by my children and their children. And in real terms, wages have been dropping. Don't tell me what a great economy this is. Go out into your community and ask your neighbors if they're better off now than they were six years ago. A clear majority of them will not agree.
5. This is the base that applauds when dick durbin and jack murtha compare american troops to nazis
Give me a source of both the quotes you imply and an opinion poll of the "base" agreeing with said quotes. Then we can talk about that statement.
You should be thankfull you have the DLC to mask your base from the rest of the country.
Currently the opinions of "my" base are in tune with the opinions of 71% of the rest of the country. The DLC is out of touch, and so are you.
My book, podcast
Blackwell's employees are mercenaries. They're ex-military contracted to peform soldiering in Iraq.
He wasn't redefining anything. He wasn't talking about soldiers, but about people over there doing soldier's work for money. The very definition of a mercenary.
If youre centrist, libertarian or just non Ideological I would suggest growing a thick skin and understanding that the more you demonstrate that there is more to the world than the slashbots comprehend the more they will hate you for it.
/. is pretty rare in that people's opinions actually can be swayed and there's room for actual discourse - not just flaming. Pay no attention to the trolls - there are real people here who don't mind opening themselves up to other points of view.
I seldom see a well-argued, politely-stated point modded as a troll, or not taken seriously. Don't be surprised when people are less-than-polite about points which you've gotten wrong or misrepresented though.
Last post!
This is so bad I may have to give up my Slashdot addiction just to save my eyes for real work.
I notice that today's stories have less than half as many comments as usual. Is this Taco's way of reducing server and bandwidth costs?
Interesting read
Anyone who thinks otherwie -- and mind you, this is totally regardless of party affiliation -- is being silly.
Anyone? Really? Anyone who disagrees with your binary interpretation of all the people who have ever held the office of White House Press Secretary is being silly? I guess I'm silly, then.
All other press secreteries are simply PR figureheads, who never -- not ever -- present their own views, if, indeed, they even have any.
Wow. Not ever. Not once. I'm sure most of them have no party affiliation, no convictions about any issues. Probably most of them just got picked up on the street corner, and would work for either a Democrat or a Republican, given enough money. I'm sure Pierre Salinger, who moved to France after George W. Bush was elected President, or Bill Moyers would have worked for anyone who bounced into office.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Funny how right-wingers still bring this up and ALWAYS misrepresent what Markos said. You may not know it but Markos grew up in El Salvador during the civil war, he has family members who were killed by mercenaries. He also served in the US military, and like most who have served he has significant qualms about the use of mercenaries. Go look up his ACTUAL comments, if you still think they are outrageous then think about the fact that he is a veteran of both the US military and of a civil war in which mercenary death squads murdered members of his family.
mod down - text is altered
Oil prices have risen because the 6 oil companies that control our government have cut down production. No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion. They love reporting this information to their investors. While a barrel of oil costs $20 to make, they turn around and sell it for $70.
It's a myth that Saudis or some organization sets these prices. The prices are set on energy trading markets. Back in 2000, Enron lobbied hard for the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act." Look it up. It deregulated the energy trading exhanges, meaning over half of the trades are unregulated. When the oil companies are the main ones throwing money around on these exchanges, it's easy for them to hike up the price.
As for the Democrats, yes they do receive money. But if you look at the percentage of campaign contributions going to Republicans, Republicans receive 4 times as much money from oil companies than democrats. That means Republicans should be hung 4 times as high for making consumers deal with this BS.
See Tyson Slocon's testimony before the Senate:http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear
Oil Refiners:
http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_
http://69.63.136.213/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/e
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_100605I
Campaign Contributions:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?I
...are some of the most powerful people in the country. People such as Rupert Murdoch. What a greedy, two-faced, snake that guy is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
I have little hope that him and his kind wont get his way. The internet we all know and love is not likely to last more than a few more years.
Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value.
Every backbone provider is being paid for use of their networks. I fault the "cloud" concept of the Internet for the public's ignorance, because people just assume their data magically gets to the other side through sheer benevolence on the part of the unseen network providers. When people say that Level 3 doesn't pay AT&T for carrying traffic, and then they use that premise to promote quality of service fees, what is not largely understood (or purposely left out) is that AT&T doesn't pay Level 3 for carrying traffic either! If AT&T starts degrading Level 3's traffic unless a fee is paid, AT&T will see either Level 3 asking AT&T for money for its traffic, or Level 3 will drop its peering and start routing traffic around AT&T (as will every other backbone network), thus leaving AT&T to pay *more* for connectivity or live in a black hole.
Please read up on Internet Peering, the practice of two large networks exchanging traffic for mutual benefit.
oh, shut up.
You and I laid that fiber with our tax dollars and still Verizon and the other big telcos get sweetheart treatment from congress and FCC no matter what they do. In a perfect world, when you pay someone to do something for you that is mutually beneficial and then they try to abuse that in a way that fucks you over, you put the smack down on them. In this case Verizon, et. al. have decided that our efforts in helping them do something mutually beneficial to both of us were not enough for them and now they are trying to fuck us over. Plus there is that whole "common carrier" concept that is apparently like a law or something, it would be totally cool if the government would enforce the motherfucking law, but for some totally weird and unknown reason they doN't Seem to reAlly give a shit...
we're the reality-based community. we demand competence in our representatives and results from our policies.
Well since he apparently doesn't know what these mercenaries do (glorified and well paid security guards) I guess he's just ignorant than. If he can't comprehend that a single word can encompass many different meaning then I'm frightened that people actually listen to him.
First off, it's the gas refineries that are the problem, since there are so few.
Considering that the Democrats have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built in the last 10 or 15 years and that the oil companies profits on one gallon of gas are around 9 cents, I find your arguments (and all those links you provide), completely unconvincing. Don't even get me started on the amount that ever single gallon of gas is taxed.
We'd be better off building more refineries and eliminating some of the massive taxes on gasoline, and spending less time citing hand picked statistics.
No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
Perhaps you could let the oil companies know of a location where they could set up a new refinery. It would need to be near existing oil distribution systems and the neighbors and local community ordinances will need to not oppose the development. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion.
These prices and profits can also be explained by limited supply (in gasoline and other refined products) and high demand. Limiting supply in many markets is only possible with a cartel, but there are exceptions. It all depends on the cost of entry. In refined oil products, there is no new entry. It is currently impossible to build a new refinery in the US for any amount of money. So you have an upper cap on supply with no upper cap on demand. High prices are the result as the demand curve shifts against the supply curve. Econ 101.
The problem is the "build absolutely nothing anywhere at any time" attitude that residents and communities currently have. Which they (and you and I) will start paying for with higher fuel prices. Which I don't mind. Personally, I think the government ought to phase in an additional 50% tax on gasoline to push the price still higher (and all of the interest in alternate fuel and power that will engender).
Regards,
Ross
Hate to break it to you, but it wasn't Verizon. It was outfits like Global Crossing and Metromedia Fiber and so on, most of whom built out much too fast and then went belly up. Their investors and creditors paid for that fiber. Now a lot of it has been bought up by Verizon (and, apparently, Google) at pennies on the dollar. Verizon's gotten it almost free, most all of it is laid through public right-of-way. So you're saying because they've had this windfall in fiber capacity (most of which they've held off the market so far) they deserve a further windfall in being able to monopolize their sectors of the Internet?
Note when it was built the business plan was to make model under the old, network neutral, model. It was never an investment towards a proprietary net.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Speaking of "devoid of observable evidence," how can anything be "counterrevolutionary" without a revolution occurring first?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Just recognize where you're posting and you'll be fine. This isn't redstate or freerepublic - it's /., which - as you've noticed - has a number of "liberal" members. Many of them are working from different worldviews as you, so you may need to back up a bit and explain why you think the way you do - even points you may take as granted. If you are impolite about your points (see "LOL - You people slay me"), or don't back them up, you're ripe for criticism.
If you post about "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" on an evolution thread, you will be flamed. This is because 90% of us here have heard that "point" debunked about 50 times, and you should know better.
I mean, look at your post:
Well argued = making points and using facts that people here are willing to acknolege.
Less than polite = Something anyone beloved here has done thats not quite kosher
Gotten Wrong or Misrepresented = Things which are not to be spoken of
It's quite obvious you're not taking me seriously. You distort my meaning and you don't link to a single thread to back up your claims.
If you have a point, make it cogently. Don't just say "it's been proven that the Iraq war saved more lives than it cost" - it hasn't been proven to me. Find the numbers and tell me how you reached that conclusion. If you're not willing to provide me a path to logically reach the same conclusion as you are already at, what reason do I have to take your claim at face value?
I've seen plenty of intelligently-argued discussions here. From your post though, I'd say it's your tone that keeps you shut out of those.
Last post!
We're drifting off topic, but the national unemployment rate doesn't take into account the number of discouraged workers, who have simply given up looking, which has got to be at an all time high because the number of new jobs created under Bush has consistently been lower than the number just to keep up, on a percentage basis, with the increase in population. Plus the median wages under Bush have not even kept up with inflation - after making real advances under Clinton for the first time since the sixties. Meanwhile the economy has kept going only by household debt raising to unprecidented heights, just as Bush has run the national debt to heights never seen before.
Okay, to come back to topic: We're really out on a limb here. Either we Americans will innovate our way out of the debt hole we've collectively dug under Bush's leadership, or we're going to see another Great Depression, as the dollar falls violently against other currencies (the Asians are already tiring of propping it up by buying our debt), and personal bankruptcies multiply as mortgages become unpayable. Most people who lose jobs now only find new jobs that pay much less. The only thing that can save us (aside from not electing any more Bushes) is radical economic innovation, of the sort we saw in the 90s before the Enron-style hucksters got ahold of it and milked the boom. And the only way to promote that innovation is to keep the Net neutral, and control of the economy away from the dinosaur-like old-line megacorps (particularly in communications and energy and banking) which have done so much to push us towards the precipice we risk falling over.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
That's pretty bad.
What do you think the GOP has been up to for the past decade? Have you not noticed the radical transformation of our government that they have accomplished?
Actually, perhaps first you could persuade them to do so. As I understand it, they're not actually dying to build new refineries. That's B.S. that has been made up for you. Or is driving the cost of their product down somehow in their interest?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I feel nothing over the fall from grace of Mike McCurry. He isn't lobbying for the telcos because he has to, or because he is trying to help the internet be a better place. He is lobbying for profit. Screw him.
As I understand it, they're not actually dying to build new refineries. That's B.S. that has been made up for you.
Your argument doesn't pass even basic muster. The issue isn't whether the incumbents are building refineries, but whether or not anyone is building refineries. When new entrepreneurs can't build refineries to cash in on the gasoline shortage, it isn't a lack of will, it's an impossibly high barrier to entry.
Stated another way: if you are convinced that there are hundreds of millions to be made by selling gasoline from a new refinery (which there is) and that it isn't too hard to build a new refinery, you should put together a business plan, convince some investors, and get in on the easy money. Even a little refinery could convert some of that excess supply and make you and your investors a nice bundle of cash... All you have to do is figure out where to put your new refinery.
No? Hmmm.
Or is driving the cost of their product down somehow in their interest?
No, maximizing their profit is, and with the profits that are being returned, you can bet that every entrepreneur who knows about oil is trying to find a way to get their part of those profits. But those new competitors can't get in. Because you can't build a new refinery in the US.
So it doesn't matter if the oil companies want to build, they aren't where the real test of the cost of entry happens.
Regards,
Ross
Fact is the State of California forced one of the oil companies to sell an oil refinery they want to close two or three years ago. If the government didn't intervene no entrepreneur would of had a chance to buy it.
Two problems with entrepeneurs:
1. where do you buy the oil? A few companies own most of the refineries and domestic supply plus and have the market power to cut better deals on crude than the little one refinery guy will.
2. Who do you sell it to? The big three are owning a bigger and bigger percent of the retail gas stations.
3. What happens if the price goes down? The big three integrated firms can cut you off at the knees with their control of crude and retail.
I thought it was regular people who voted to disallow these ugly polluting structures near themselves. I guess the environmental nuts (OK, that must be the group you meant) wanted to protect our groundwater and other resources and so pressed to not build more.
Maybe we could just USE LESS, ya think? Eat less food, burn less fuel...you know, don't be a hog.
Blar.
All the rage these days seems to be decrying the companies involved when most of the companies realize that excess oil prices, although positive at the moment, will lead to headaches down the road. There was a recent Wired article that listed three different energy alternatives that would be viable around 90$ a barrel. I think these companies realize that when it hits that price, they have serious competition especially because of the negative reputation of oil producing countries and the serious environmental costs.
Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
Syndicated journalist, Molli Ivins, states there is no such thing as left or right (or centrist) - that what one needs to do with any issue - is to find out who is getting SCREWED and who is doing the SCREWING.
At any given moment, anyone of any political stripe will more often then not SCREW anyone - even someone with the same political stripe - if there is enough power and money as a reward
Naturally using "left and right" spinning is used to create a smoke screen - to help hide what is actually happening - to "divide and conquer". Traditionally the British have used "divide and conquer" to SCREW people all over the world for the past several hundred years (at least)
Ever time I see (or hear) the words "left" and "right" - I cringe. At the same time - it's a useful flag to know the TV program or newspaper article or radio program is about to unload a truck load of bullshit.
"There are millions and millions of good Democrats who get paid by corporations," he said, "and I think every time we bash corporations, we just turn off people who are in the middle of the political spectrum."
Oh, speaking as a Demcorat, I can agree that it's a bad thing to "bash" corporations, provided that by "bash" you mean "persecute in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner."
However,it's profoundly against what it means to be a Democrat to call it "bashing" just because you aren't doing what an individual corporation or cartel would like. What it means to be a Demcorat is to belive that the government is the custodian of the public good, as measured by the effect on the welfare and freedom on a typical person. Sometimes this means standing in the way of private companies, sometimes this means stepping aside, and sometimes this means encouraging them. In the end the significance of the corporation's welfare is, in itself, zero. If a policy is good for the public and good for a corporation, that's nice. But if a policy is good for the public and bad for an individual corporation, or even corporations as a whole, it's still a good policy.
That's what distinguishes us from the Republicans, who think this is very nearly a logical contradiction. You don't have to be anti-corporate to be a Democrat. You can still be a Demcorat an think that 99.9% of the time favoring corporations as a whole favors the public. You just can't think that favoring corporations and favoring people is the same thing.
You can be a Democrat and make an argument against net neutrality -- it's an uphill battle, but it can be done. You just have to show a quid pro quo in which the public gives up the right to unfettered competition in Internet content, but gains something more valuable in return. It's hard to imagine what this would be though. With cable and the end of rules limiting ownership of broadcast outlets and newspapers, we're seeing the end of the traditional media as a marketplace of ideas, even if economic competition continues unabated. What will happen when corporations can favor their own Internet media as well?
"The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky."
This is also completely wrong.
The Internet is not a bunch of wires and switches. It's a shared consensus on how to interconnect networks and computers. Granted consumers connect to the Internet over and individual vendor's equipment; in fact when you plug your computer into the network your computer becomes, technically speaking, part of the Internet. This doesn't mean you own part of the Internet. It means your equipment is participating in it.
It follows that no cartel of vendors should be allowed to sieze control of the Internet by aquiring control strategic pieces of it. That was what the medieval barons, who were really no than brigands, used to do. They'd build a castle on a river or at a mountain pass and bled the commerce that went through it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Criticize Fox News and post stories from DailyKOS. Bias is ok, if it's to the left I guess.
First off, it's the gas refineries that are the problem, since there are so few.
Yes, it is. (though you wouldn't know it from all the oil execs lying and blaming ethonol producers, the US Congress and OPEC a few months ago).
Considering that the Democrats have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built in the last 10 or 15 years and that the oil companies profits on one gallon of gas are around 9 cents, I find your arguments (and all those links you provide), completely unconvincing.
Nobody is preventing new refineries from being built other than the oil companies. Hi, put down your GOP playbook and come on down to visit us here on the gulf coast where we do the vast majority of refining and local governments have been trying to get refineries built for decades. We've got entire cities whose citizens do nothing but running oil refineries and they'd all love to have new ones built. I can take you on a tour of Pasadena and Beaumont if you like, and introduce you to a few thousand of my close personal friends in industry and government who'd love the tax base and the overtime.
The only reason we don't have refineries being built is because there is no incentive to do so -- oil companies can sell 1,000,000 barrels for $70,000,000, or they can invest billions in refineries and sell 1,000,000 barrels for $50,000,000. It's a no-brainer, it's far more profitable to operate fewer refineries and charge more for the product. And since all the companies have merged, there's no possibility of somebody upsetting the apple cart, they just silently agree to do nothing and everybody gets richer. It's not like you and I are going to get some buddies together and build a $2 billion refinery to compete with them (ExxonMobil made almost $10 billion PROFIT at the end of 2005! That's 5 refineries right there -- ask anyone in Houston how fast the companies are throwing that money at every conceivable project they can find for tax breaks, but none of those projects are refineries!)
It's no different than in California when the out of state suppliers were artifically jacking up prices by just shutting down electric generators during peak periods for "maintenance". Why go to all the hard work of maximizing production when you can make more money by minimizing it? So what if the country as a whole gets f*cked in the process? The beauty is that they can make more money for less work, and people like you who've never worked in oil and gas actually believe them when they blame it on the big, bad government!
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Where do you live? Clearly not on the Gulf Coast, as there are plenty of places here who'd be happy to have ten oil refineries built. The problem (for us, not for the oil companies) is that it's more profitable to restrict production than it is to meet demand. See California's externally-created artificial energy crisis for proof of that. We can send you some tapes from here in Texas of Enron traders laughing at brownouts while they make $100/kWh from turning off generators during peak demand, but then that wouldn't quite fit in with your idyllic notion of how the free market works -- after all, if it was really a problem, me and a few friends could go and build ourselves a power station in a week to cash in on those huge artifical profits!
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Seriously, why would a bunch of "creation science" types who get their opinions about the environment from Exxon-Mobil junk "scientists" (aka PR flacks) have anything to say that would be interest at a technology/science site? We're not likely to have any interest in content-free "balance" on technology and science subjects from people who know zip about either.
If you want to find a place full of Republicans who think they're clued about technology and might have opinions of interest to slashdotters, try Always-On Network, the VC / entrepreneur / wannabe blog.
Tech Public Policy stuff
McCurry's name is mud in the Democratic activist community, of which Daily Kos is an important part. Hopefully, he'll be so radioactive after this that legislators won't want to be associated publically with him.
He should quit whining, suck it up, and deal. Influence peddling for a living has its occupational hazards. Especially when one tries to sell it to the wrong people.
Perhaps Exxon-Mobil can find him a PR job. Or NAMBLA.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Though responding to GOP groupthink with facts really isn't fair.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Where do you live? Clearly not on the Gulf Coast, as there are plenty of places here who'd be happy to have ten oil refineries built.
I've lived in Houston and been scuba diving and fishing up and down the Gulf Coast. I know that the residents of Matogorda are not particularly thrilled with their local refineries (after one notable accident about four years ago). I know that the refineries closer to Houston are similarly considered an eyesore and a downward pressure on the neighbor's property value.
your idyllic notion of how the free market works
Based on this statement alone, it's clear that you have dramatically misunderstood me. I do not believe that 100% free markets result in social good or even fair outcomes for producers and consumers (as some lassie-faire advocates do believe). In general, I believe there are categories of regulation (public safety, truth in advertising, warranty enforcement, consumer advocacy, etc.) that are almost universally needed, and many other industry-specific categories of regulation (internet open carrier rules, etc.) that are also quite important.
See California's externally-created artificial energy crisis for proof of that. We can send you some tapes from here in Texas of Enron traders laughing at brownouts while they make $100/kWh from turning off generators during peak demand,
I've watched the Enron documentary (I currently live in Southern California), and I got pretty indignant at the blatant supply manipulations to inflate profits, joking about taking grannie's life savings et. al. They confirmed my belief that government regulation of critical resources is not simply a good idea, but an absolute necessity to maintain a functioning market.
What I don't accept without a lot more information is that the oil companies' lack of new refinery construction is entirely or mostly greed based. I think they could make more money with more capacity and I'm pretty sure they know that. I know for a fact that in Southern California, where I live now, there was one attempt to build a new refinery near Long Beach, and another attempt to expand one of the refineries currently operating in Long Beach. These efforts have been ongoing for at least three years. Both projects have been stopped cold by lawsuits and red tape put up by the local community.
The combined interests of property value, public safety, and environmental concerns (among many others) are all against new industrial development, even in areas already zoned for industry. Once those concerns are removed or made irrelevant, let's see if the oil companies build any more capacity. Until then, there are simply too many reasons not to build for anyone to conclusively say that it's all about greed.
Regards,
Ross
After Clinton retired, the DLC demonstrated an inability to win elections, they deserve the credit for losing the House, Senate, and White House. But since most Congressional Democrats are DLCers, we're still stuck with the DLC.
The disconnect between Democratic party activists at places like DailyKos and "national Democrats" is fairly complete.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Actually you can't. You would need to run cable to millions of homes
Just to tie this off real quick...
MONKEY WAFFLES!!!!!
And there it is bravo.
"The bank manager was brought in problem was he took the cashiers side when she'd clearly cheated me"
The rules can't *possibly* be plain, because so many things can go wrong, and you have to use a little common sense.
I think youre done. But thank you for going exactly where I thought you would and confirming my initial assesment.
Based on this statement alone, it's clear that you have dramatically misunderstood me. I do not believe that 100% free markets result in social good or even fair outcomes for producers and consumers
Well, hey, all I can go by is what you wrote. You're the one who suggested some random guy on slashdot should go out with a few buddies and build an oil refinery, and that his inability to do so was, in fact evidence that some government force is preventing major oil companies from doing the same. It sounded like Ayn Randian "the free market is infallible" talk.
The combined interests of property value, public safety, and environmental concerns (among many others) are all against new industrial development, even in areas already zoned for industry. Once those concerns are removed or made irrelevant, let's see...
Nobody is ever again going to be able to build a massive, industrial structure anywhere on this planet without having to go through red tape. That's why massive, industrial structures aren't cheap -- even if you were building a hospital you'd have to spend a significant amount of time and money getting paperwork done and overcoming objections before breaking ground. Airports take a decade or more to build because of these exact same issues, and yet we get them built.
On what day are all regulations and public concerns going to disappear or be made irrelevant? And more importantly, why hasn't every other industry in the Unites States come to a screeching halt due to those same issues? It's not like coal mines are welcomed everywhere with open arms, yet somehow the companies manage to buy out the property of opponents when it's necessary -- and they don't even have the luxury of being able to play one jurisdiction against another for financial incentives, you have to mine where the coal is.
Yes, every 5 years or so there's an explosion or leak from either a refinery or a chemical plant on the Texas Gulf Coast. It's been that way my entire life, yet chemical plants are expanding and being built over the objections, in part because the more modern ones are safer and have less environmental impact than 30+ year old plants. For some reason, while Dow Chemical can figure out how to routinely pull this paperwork and negotiation off, ExxonMobil merely shrugs its shoulders and says its impossible? Do you believe that Dow Chemical has more political and economic influence in southeast Texas than ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips, and Chevron/Texaco combined?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The facts contradict you: sans-serif fonts on-screen are much easier to read than serif faced fonts. The exact opposite of paper, where serif fonts beat out sans-serif by a handy margin. These facts have been established by numerous studies over the last few years - and apply to all screens of 72 dpi and 96 dpi. Once resolutions exceed 200 dpi, the differences will begin to revert back to the performance of paper. Until then; sans serif fonts rule the Internet.
Things which improve the readability and retention of serif fonts on the web are ClearType font smoothing, (or any version of sub-pixel rendering), larger font sizes and higher dpi values on your monitor.
What you are in fact complaining about is SMALLER fonts, I believe.
So - hold down CTRL and roll your mouse wheel.
VOILA!
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
What Kos doesn't realize is that he is also shilling for big corporations. He just isn't getting paid for it! Microsoft, Google, et al have created a lucrative business model that is based on piggy-backing on the sweat equity of others. MS doesn't have to develop chips, assemble PCs, or worry about market share, yet they reap more profit than almost all the manufacturers combined. Same with Google; a bunch of guys had a nifty idea about using search technology to sell classified ads--by using a delivery system belonging to other companies and paid for by you and me.
If you look at the history of broadcast radio and TV you will realize that small players can definitely compete with the big guys. Cable proved the point by adding 500 more channels. Considering the current capacity of the internet plus all the dark fiber laying around, any service provider would be an idiot to deny access to content that is available for free. If some other companies want to pay for priority access to extra bandwidth, what's wrong with that?
On the other hand, without the pressure of market forces we face what is known as "the tragedy of the commons." Companies selling counterfeit Viagra, underage porn, and phony stock scams flood the internet, turning it into a swamp we all have to wade through to get to the useful stuff. Meanwhile, companies like Google reap huge profits off the infrastructure without contributing anything to its maintenance or development.
Same with Google; a bunch of guys had a nifty idea about using search technology to sell classified ads--by using a delivery system belonging to other companies and paid for by you and me. ... Meanwhile, companies like Google reap huge profits off the infrastructure without contributing anything to its maintenance or development.
What? Are you seriously saying Google gets its Internet connection for *free*? If that's the case, you're horribly misguided. I responded to a similar comment in another posting, which you can read here.
The problem is there are very few true Republican or Democratic state (at least in my state) or federal Executives, Senators and Representatives. I have become fond of saying that Washington and most state capitals have become infested with Republic-rats. This is not say they are moderates, instead they seem to have managed to devolve into a vile species of creature that has the attributes of the worst aspects of both parties.
There are way to many opportunist types calling themselves Republicans that who do not hold traditional Republican values like self responsibility, constitutional caution and thrift. Instead they seem hell bent on perverting private issues into divisive social confrontations all the while picking the pockets of the small business person and working people and creating a revolving door political-corporate oligarchical Neo-fascist big brother state.
It also seems to me that way to many so called Democrats have forgotten the honorable liberal principles of freedom of the individual to live as they please, innovation and courage in the face of change and the ethics of striving to progressively create a more equatable society. Instead they seem too often to be obsessed with creating an always politically correct socialist nanny state, are too greedy or cowardly to say no to way too many special interest agendas, and too self interested to stand up for core liberal values.
The sometimes conflicting agendas of true Republicans and Democrats work well to rein in the extremes of either. However the perversions of those values into what we see today may very well destroy this nation if not corrected in time. If this situation is not corrected soon our descendants may very well curse the selfishness, ignorance and cowardice of those that allowed the destruction of the greatest scientific, economic and culture power in history and allowed its children to be robbed of their hopes, dreams and liberty.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
When the people fear their Government, there is tyranny. When the Government fears it's people, there is liberty.." Thomas Paine
I want this bill killed as well but...
If Google, Microsoft and Ebay are so concerned why is none of this on their front page? If Google, Microsoft, Ebay and Yahoo threatened to net block the supporters of those bills how fast do you think the bill would die? VERY QUICKLY. What if Microsoft said to Verizon that we will no longer license any more copies of Windows to your organization if you continue to support this bill?
Any of these actions would kill this bill outright.
If the last-mile providers stop providing a good value, there are thousands of small companies (like mine) who would be happy to eat their lunch. I can't compete with DSL at $14/month, but if that DSL was unable to access MySpace or google, then I could.
My point is that niether the telcos nor the state have your interest at heart. However, the telcos are much easier to fight.