Slashdot Mirror
Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue
alphadogg writes "The Obama Administration bills itself as the most tech-savvy political team ever, but until now it has ignored one of the biggest issues facing the Internet: the rapid depletion of IPv4 Internet addresses and the imminent need for carriers and content providers to adopt IPv6. Today, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a workshop on IPv6 that features high-profile executives from government, industry and Internet policymaking organizations. Some observers are hoping the Obama Administration will use the workshop to issue a deadline for all federal agencies to support IPv6 on their public-facing Web sites."
I'm sure Fox News will bill it as Obama trying to take over the internet. Your IP address will have to face a death panel!
Get rid of the crap services out there and recover those IP's.
Way to fit in a completely irrelevant Fox News bash.
- First they obsoleted my VCR so I got a DVR.
- Then they turned-off analog broadcast, so the DVR was obsoleted too.
- Now I have to upgrade my browser to get IPv6 (whatever that is).
- Next I guess somebody will tell me the New Internet Explorer doesn't work on my XP netbook, or that I have to upgrade my radio to Digital Audio Broadcast
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
What's the point of your comment? That nobody is supposed to criticize Obama for making bad decisions because other presidents in the past have made bad decisions?
Not bloody likely. There's little chance that he has the foggiest notion what an IP number is (well, he may have a foggy notion, but it is almost certainly wrong).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
how does delusional hoping for the rapture do for leadership?
It worked for Bush!
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
That depends. Are your a corporate CEO agreeing to let me "peer" packets with your secretary's PC? 'Cause if you are then I agree that NAT has got to go. ;-)
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
You were being ignorant. Comparing a fascist to a fascist is quasi reasonable, even if it is sort of absurd to imply a similar level of crime. But comparing somebody that's been regularly accused of being a socialist to a fascist just makes one a jack ass.
Of course, because there is absolutely no relation between the Nazi's and Socialists. None whatsoever.
Now, plug your ears and repeat that over and over whenever someone tells you what Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
No, my point is that claiming Obama is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, especially when you consider what previous leaders have done, is ludicrous.
This seems insightful, but depending on the actual demographics of their time, it might not be. Obama rode a wave of 'change' into the whitehouse, propelled by the fewest number of voters to label themselves as 'liberal' ever. He vaguely promised that he'd be different, and everyone bought it. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for his promises.
Here we are, working on our third year together and ALL of the changes we're seeing are for the worse. While few would have thought that Bush would have become a war President, he clearly adapted when the towers were struck. He got on that new pony and rode it into oblivion. Fast forward to Obama, and not only did he not foresee the oncoming financial disaster, he also did basically nothing to counteract it. Nothing, anyway, that he wasn't already planning to do. In fact he continued to press his agendas despite our clear unwillingness and inability to pay for them, and is continuing to do so to this very day.
Obama demonstrated to the voter that 'change' means what Obama wants it to mean. It doesn't mean what the people clearly wanted - as in a leadership that listens to the voters, is honest, and behaves responsibly. Obama and Bush are genuine equals when it comes to alienating the majority of the nation with their blindly-followed agendas. His 'change' was only that from 'war and profits' to 'war and socialism'.
If you can find a President with that exact same circumstance, THEN I'd be impressed. Otherwise, the outcome of this round of shenanigans could well be unique.
I'm surprised if they still teach this in school... Jackson is a wonderful progressive who centralized the banking system!
I was making a point. During the Bush era I saw Democrats/liberals carrying Hitler signs. But now suddenly, that's not allowed. Hypocrites.
By the way fascists ARE socialists.
"socialist" was in the name of the 1920s-40s fascist parties of Spain, Italy, and Germany. And the parties of Eastern Europe, USSR and China.
Of course not all socialists are fascists.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
O yeah:
The irony is that MSNBC is just as slanted as FOX, but in the opposite direction. (FOX is pro-R and MSNBC is pro-Democrat.) But for some reason almost nobody sees that obvious bias MSNBC has. They think it's a great channel! Amazing.....
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
FOX..... lying sacks of shit.
AKA Republicans and Libertarians. ;-)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Why would you exclude Bush from "war and socialism"?
I wouldn't necessarily do so, but I think the whole Haliburton angle is probably more defining.
I'm sorry, but if you can't see that the other organizations are just as guilty you're being willfully blind.
Interesting factiod. But it still works towards the premise. He said he would be different, and we inferred that this would be desirable. Neither materialized.
you find another news organization that regularly attempts to deceive it's viewership,
MSNBC did a report about a black man carrying a gun at a Liberty Rally. They even captured the guy on video.
They then chopped the black guy's head off (in the edit room, not literally) and turned it into a 15 minute story about "gun toting whites" who "are probably racist" and "don't like having a black man as president".
That's just the most obvious example. There are many, many others.... although MSNBC's favorite technique is not to lie, but simply not cover worthy events (censorship through silence). For example they never covered the Muslim rally that called for the Pope to "go to hell" and "pay for crimes against humanity" and "death to the pope!". FOX and CNN covered it. But if you were watching MSNBC you probably never even knew that happened.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Oftentimes the worst and most virilant hate happens between brothers.
The National Socialists, Communists, and Social Democrats were all "reds" but they still did not get along. It's akin to how I read a lot of Greens calling the Democrat Congress "lousy" even though they are all liberals and all want basically the same goal (healthcare, environmental protection, etc). It's brother against brother infighting.
BTW one of the key differences between National Socialists and Communists was that one wanted to maintain private ownership of land, while the other wanted no private ownership (collectivism). Otherwise they have pretty much the same policies (free healthcare, free college, etc).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
- Free Healthcare for All? Check.
- Free Retirement for the Elderly? Check.
- Free Housing/Food for the Poor? Check.
- Free School plus College for the People? Check.
- Not free, but government-subsidized "People's Wagons" for everyone, even the poor? Check.
Boy... Of course, you know none of that stuff is free, right? It's all paid for with taxes. So, by that definition:
* Free Healthcare for at least some, including all elderly and poor? Check.
* Free Retirement for the Elderly? Check.
* Free and/or greatly subsidized Food/Housing for the Poor? Check.
* Free school, plus subsidized college for the people? Check.
* Not free, but government-subsidized "locally-built cars" for everyone, even the poor?
Man, the USA looks pretty socialist.
Actually, this is the 2nd of your posts I've replied to, and I'm starting to wonder if you're either trolling or being sarcastic. It's either that, or you're a Tea Party true believer; the fact that I can't tell is a troubling sign of the political weather.
Tea Partiers: The vuvuzelas of socio-political discourse.
You're correct, the US is becoming Socialistic. It's been moving slowly that way for a while, but since Obama being elected it's been careening wildly down that path.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Of course, because there is absolutely no relation between the Nazi's and Socialists. None whatsoever.
Now, plug your ears and repeat that over and over whenever someone tells you what Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means.
It means a fascist douchebag co-opted a nice, grass roots organization to his own tyrannical means.
Kinda like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck.
Strange... and here I thought Glenn Beck was a Libertarian calling for LESS government and is constantly preaching about his fear of tyrannical government. So let's see. Either you're completely ignorant and totally speaking out your ass when you call Beck a Fascist or we're talking about two different Glenn Becks.
I think you're talking out your ass and just throwing around the biggest insult word you know about people you don't understand, yet have nothing but pure, white-hot hatred for. You call these people Fascist because they have done nothing to justify your hatred, so you have to make stuff up. It's easy to make yourself believe it because the hatred, or the result, is already there. You just need justification. Here is how it works:
1) You hate people who have an opinion different than your own.
2) You make up things in your head to justify that hatred (Beck is a Nazi, for example)
3) You believe it because you already hated Beck so much, him being a Nazi is not really a stretch, even though you completely fabricated it in your head.
(is there a ??? and profit in there?)
Oh, and Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei stands for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Not that it matters as you simply won't believe a Nazi they have the word "Socialist" and "Worker's Party", right there in the name, because, you know, it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what you hate (Nazi's) and what you don't hate (Socialism) and even the though the evidence slaps you in the face, you simply won't believe it because it's not what you believe.
Oh, and are you really saying that the Nazi's were nice people before Hitler took over? Seriously!??!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.