Why I am I seeing in my mind the image of Arnold J. Rimmer (H)??? Is 2011 the year of the Esperanto desktop? Nope. I suspect Star Trek has it correct that the Earth will be speaking english in the future with various local languages preserved for cultural reasons.
As for illogical language rules, they could easily be removed from the language such as saying "swim" "swimmed" "have swimmed" instead of the archaic swim, swam, swum. Just the same way Americans replaced "metre" and "civilised" with the more proper, logical "meter" and "civilized" spelling to match how we speak. (ducks British spitball)
Chinese may be the biggest language, but it doesn't span the world like English does. If you write in english almost everyone will understand you, regardless if they are in northern Canada or the southern tip of South America. In the brushlands of Africa or standing in frozen Siberia. In Europe or far-off India, Australia, or Japan. English is a near-universal tongue thanks to the spread by the British Empire and later cultural dominance of the US Free Market.
In contrast chinese is pretty much confined to just China. Few people outside that country understand chinese websites.
>>>The airwaves are common property of all of us and radio stations are granted use of that common resource by the government.
Even if I agreed with your proposition, the Cable lines and Internet lines are not airwaves (DUH). It's as obvious as 1+1 =/= 4. Furthermore these cables are PRIVATE and do not belong to the people. The government could reasonably "police" the public airwaves like they police the public roads or public lands, but they have NO authority to police private channels. They can no more control what the private MSNBC or private infowars.com says, than they can impose a Fairness Doctrine on newspapers or books. .
>>> The thing that the Fox new'es of the world don't want is competition of ideas in close proximity to their brand of the "truth".
You're probably right. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just as "LP News" is slanted toward the libertarian perspective. And the "Communist Manifesto" book is slanted towards eliminating private property. It's called freedom of speech/press/expression.
- If I wasn't at work I'd try to oblige you by giving links, but videos are blocked here.
- And if this was an ordinary forum I would expect the low IQ participants need to be spoon-fed information. But since this is/. I figure the readers are tech-saavy enough to google "fairness doctrine white house czar" and find the relevant links/audios/videos for themselves. Similar to how the professors in college expect you to do your OWN research.
Yeah I agree that it's backwards from what I expected.
I thought all my Democrat friends would agree with me that the Cops in the videos deserved jailtime (instead of being left free), but then I remembered that it's the Democrats who are currently in power. My friends/colleagues are defending the cops (and the new "If You See something suspicious, Call the DHS" policy), because it's the Democrats who are currently in power. They are defending their team.
Oh forget it. Talking to you is about as much a waste of time as trying to convince Christians that the earth is older than 6000 years old. YOU. WON'T. LISTEN. I hate people who don't use their brains and you are their chief damned fool.
Latin is also the name of the PEOPLE who lived in central Italy. So you corrected me, but I was not wrong when I said "A word invented by the Latins". I was 100% correct. That was the name of the region and the people who lived there.
Also the claim "marriage" is a Christian word is bullshit. Christianity didn't even exist when the word was invented by non-christian PAGAN speakers who worshipped dozens of gods.
Riiiight. The majority of Christians ARE control freaks. That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed). And don't come-up with some bullshit about how marriage is religious. The word "marriage" was invented by the Latins circa 1000 BC and defined to include any kind of coupling whether male-female or same-sex.
There's a reason the Founders did not want an official state religion. They didn't want to be suppressed by moral dictatorship. The history of the Catholic and Church of England are just as bloody and despotic as the history of Nazi Germany. Whither goes religious persons also goes DEATH and tyranny. Just look at modern-day Iran or Arabia.
A relokgious perdson deserves about as much respect as a member of the KKK.
>>>often he isn't saying what you think he is saying.
BULLSHIT. "The new Honda and Toyota hybrids only go 55 miles an hour." (back in 2002). "The Chevy Volt has a limited range of just 40 miles. I can only drive it 20 miles away from my house, and then have to turn-around to recharge it! No wonder they didn't sell any." (just last month)
Please explain how these sentences can possibly mean anything other than what they say. You can't.
>>>They are different things and should be treated as such
Not in the mind of politicians who see Passage of Net Neutrality as a chance to include "fairness" too. Look what they did with the Health Reform bill which somehow ended-up including provisions to monitor credit card purchases in real time (and other non-related crap). Or the Financial Reform Bill which allows the government to install "sniffers" at the ISP's central node and monitor everyone's web activity. What's that have to do with finance reform of banks??? We're just lucky that the politicians did not get their way when NN was passed.
fcc.gov has the NN document published online (and note it has already passed). In brief it has 3 major rules which require ISPs to be completely-open about what fees the customer will charge, forbid Comcast and ISPs from blocking websites, and forbids them from discriminating against websites (i.e. netflix.com is slower than comcast.com).
It also does Not regulate the Wireless ISPs because the FCC believes there is enough competition that the market will take care of any problems (i.e. customers will quit the ISP if it blocks/slows access to netflix.com and switch to somebody else).
>>>[Limbaugh listeners] not the kind of people that would be willing to listen to ANY opposing arguments.
This works both ways. When I share videos of cop misbehavior, such as when they killed a man's pet cat, or shot a little girl, or murdered a man holding a watering hose, or beat a man walking his dog, or threw a blind woman to the ground and killed her seeing-eye dog, or..... I immediately get accosted by people saying that I should not be criticizing cops. These persons (almost all of them self-proclaimed Democrats) act as if cops can do no wrong and any attempt to show otherwise is met with "You shithead!" and other insults.
It's not a Strawman when people sitting in the white house are saying, "When we pass net neutrality we should also include the fairness doctrine as part of the regulations." (Cass Sunstein and Jones). Or the new Diversity Chair in the FCC saying it's time to revive the fairness doctrine for both broadcast television AND cable news AND internet websites. I've seen the videos/heard the audios myself. Or the Congressman saying MSNBC and FOXnews should be yanked off the air and the internet. Or the White House calling TRUtv and demanding Governor Ventura's Internment Camps episode be pulled from the TV and the web. Or Youtube pulling the 'obama deception' video because they said it's wrong to criticize a sitting president.
As it turns out the NN rules passed are actually harmless, but the FCC was immediately criticized for it, because many say they didn't go far enough to censor websites they don't like (like Alex Jones).
I used to listen to Limbaugh (2002) until I heard him comparing the then-new Prius and Honda Insight hybrids to yugos, and claiming they can't run faster than 55. Well I owned an insight and knew that was a flat lie (its top speed was 120).
More recently he's been saying the Chevy Volt hybrid only goes 40 miles. Limbaugh ought to take a page from Glenn Beck and actually RESEARCH a topic before speaking because while the Volt Electric Mode only goes 40 miles, it also has a gasoline engine that turns-on when the battery is empty. Stupid shithead Rush... I refuse to listen to him anymore because if he can't get that basic tiny fact straight, it makes me wonder what else he's getting wrong.
Please note I'm quoting this from memory. The actual videos can be found on google.
When the Democrats issue statements like, "We need a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. For example maybe you'll visit foxnews.com and a popup will ask if you want to read democrat.org too. We need to include that as part of net neutrality and other FCC regulations." Or "We need to pass a law to remove MSNBC and FOXnews from cable television." The latter came from a Congressman Kennedy who is a nobody, but the first came from one of the White House "czars" who directly advises the president and the FCC Chair. i.e. A powerful person.
And then of course there's Obama himself who gave a college speech advising them not to read the internet news sites and only listen to WH press releases as "trustworthy" sources of information. (Please note I am Libertarian, so any comment about how I am a "Bush lover" or whatever would be pointless.)
And the more-recent act where TRUtv was ordered by somebody in the White House to pull Governor Ventura's show about FEMA internment camps off the air. i.e. Censorship of a private channel. So if there's confusion by Republicans, it's because of what they are hearing coming out of the Congress and White House own administrators. The message they are sending sounds like anti-free speech rhetoric. Maybe they should stop doing that.
Why not? What crime has been committed by looking at 4chan.com from the privacy of your home? The concept is as ridiculous as saying I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana or walk around naked*. My actions harm no one but myself.
* *Only control freaks (or christians) would disagree. Which is why in Virginia a man was arrested for being naked in his own home. Dumbass anti-freedom politicians.
The Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate until Senator Kennedy died. As Obama wisely observed at the start of his presidency, "The Republicans will take a backseat and remain quiet." The Democrats held an unstoppable majority.
Malcolm X once observed in the late sixties, "The Democrats are so powerful, the republicans might well pack their bags and go home." In the previous century, the Democrats controlled the Congress for almost 80 years out of 100. THAT is why I call it the century of the Democrat Congresses.
Denial of Service has been a favored tactic used against the KKK and other undesirable groups for years. Why can't the same tactic be used against hate-filled corporations? To say "no you can't use the same tactics WE use" is as hypocritical as when cops say "you can't videotape us" while they erect video-cams everywhere.
Citation please. That would be a remarkable feat, considering the republicans were a super-minority completely and totally dominated by the Democrats (controlled ~60% of the Congress). Speaking as someone outside the power base (i.e. unelected libertarian), I consider myself an impartial observer of the Rep-Dem Duopoly. And I don't comprehend how the republicans can be blamed when it was the Democrats that held the power of Congress for four years. And another ~40 years from 1956 to 1994.
This last century was the century of the Democrat-run Congresses. So how again is it that we blame the Reps? Makes as little sense as blaming the minority libertarians. i.e. Citation please.
Slashdot Mirror
Why I am I seeing in my mind the image of Arnold J. Rimmer (H)??? Is 2011 the year of the Esperanto desktop? Nope. I suspect Star Trek has it correct that the Earth will be speaking english in the future with various local languages preserved for cultural reasons.
As for illogical language rules, they could easily be removed from the language such as saying "swim" "swimmed" "have swimmed" instead of the archaic swim, swam, swum. Just the same way Americans replaced "metre" and "civilised" with the more proper, logical "meter" and "civilized" spelling to match how we speak. (ducks British spitball)
Chinese may be the biggest language, but it doesn't span the world like English does. If you write in english almost everyone will understand you, regardless if they are in northern Canada or the southern tip of South America. In the brushlands of Africa or standing in frozen Siberia. In Europe or far-off India, Australia, or Japan. English is a near-universal tongue thanks to the spread by the British Empire and later cultural dominance of the US Free Market.
In contrast chinese is pretty much confined to just China. Few people outside that country understand chinese websites.
>>>The airwaves are common property of all of us and radio stations are granted use of that common resource by the government.
Even if I agreed with your proposition, the Cable lines and Internet lines are not airwaves (DUH). It's as obvious as 1+1 =/= 4. Furthermore these cables are PRIVATE and do not belong to the people. The government could reasonably "police" the public airwaves like they police the public roads or public lands, but they have NO authority to police private channels. They can no more control what the private MSNBC or private infowars.com says, than they can impose a Fairness Doctrine on newspapers or books.
.
>>> The thing that the Fox new'es of the world don't want is competition of ideas in close proximity to their brand of the "truth".
You're probably right. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just as "LP News" is slanted toward the libertarian perspective.
And the "Communist Manifesto" book is slanted towards eliminating private property.
It's called freedom of speech/press/expression.
- If I wasn't at work I'd try to oblige you by giving links, but videos are blocked here. /. I figure the readers are tech-saavy enough to google "fairness doctrine white house czar" and find the relevant links/audios/videos for themselves. Similar to how the professors in college expect you to do your OWN research.
- And if this was an ordinary forum I would expect the low IQ participants need to be spoon-fed information.
But since this is
In fact /. had a news article about a month ago that SAID that was what it was for.
Yeah I agree that it's backwards from what I expected.
I thought all my Democrat friends would agree with me that the Cops in the videos deserved jailtime (instead of being left free), but then I remembered that it's the Democrats who are currently in power. My friends/colleagues are defending the cops (and the new "If You See something suspicious, Call the DHS" policy), because it's the Democrats who are currently in power. They are defending their team.
Oh Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. It's RIGHT HERE on the front page of FCC.gov. If it was a rattlesnake you'd already be dead:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc
HERE'S THE LINK:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#40347342 Now explain how he could mean anything other than EXACTLY what he said (Chevy volt only lets you go 40 miles and no further).
Oh forget it. Talking to you is about as much a waste of time as trying to convince Christians that the earth is older than 6000 years old. YOU. WON'T. LISTEN. I hate people who don't use their brains and you are their chief damned fool.
>>>Latin is the language
Latin is also the name of the PEOPLE who lived in central Italy. So you corrected me, but I was not wrong when I said "A word invented by the Latins". I was 100% correct. That was the name of the region and the people who lived there.
Also the claim "marriage" is a Christian word is bullshit. Christianity didn't even exist when the word was invented by non-christian PAGAN speakers who worshipped dozens of gods.
manned by a 100 or so employees.
The end. No great mystery.
>>>English just had two nice different words meaning "costless" and "not enslaved"
It does. Free and liberty. I would have called "free software" as "liberated software" to avoid confusion.
I'll ask the question: Does it run Lucid Puppy? I want an OS that fits in RAM (read: fast).
Only because the Democrat Congress (which had well over 60% majority) let him.
They could have easily blocked Reagan from doing anything.
Riiiight.
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks.
That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed). And don't come-up with some bullshit about how marriage is religious. The word "marriage" was invented by the Latins circa 1000 BC and defined to include any kind of coupling whether male-female or same-sex.
There's a reason the Founders did not want an official state religion. They didn't want to be suppressed by moral dictatorship. The history of the Catholic and Church of England are just as bloody and despotic as the history of Nazi Germany. Whither goes religious persons also goes DEATH and tyranny. Just look at modern-day Iran or Arabia.
A relokgious perdson deserves about as much respect as a member of the KKK.
>>>often he isn't saying what you think he is saying.
BULLSHIT. "The new Honda and Toyota hybrids only go 55 miles an hour." (back in 2002). "The Chevy Volt has a limited range of just 40 miles. I can only drive it 20 miles away from my house, and then have to turn-around to recharge it! No wonder they didn't sell any." (just last month)
Please explain how these sentences can possibly mean anything other than what they say. You can't.
>>>They are different things and should be treated as such
Not in the mind of politicians who see Passage of Net Neutrality as a chance to include "fairness" too. Look what they did with the Health Reform bill which somehow ended-up including provisions to monitor credit card purchases in real time (and other non-related crap). Or the Financial Reform Bill which allows the government to install "sniffers" at the ISP's central node and monitor everyone's web activity. What's that have to do with finance reform of banks??? We're just lucky that the politicians did not get their way when NN was passed.
fcc.gov has the NN document published online (and note it has already passed). In brief it has 3 major rules which require ISPs to be completely-open about what fees the customer will charge, forbid Comcast and ISPs from blocking websites, and forbids them from discriminating against websites (i.e. netflix.com is slower than comcast.com).
It also does Not regulate the Wireless ISPs because the FCC believes there is enough competition that the market will take care of any problems (i.e. customers will quit the ISP if it blocks/slows access to netflix.com and switch to somebody else).
>>>[Limbaugh listeners] not the kind of people that would be willing to listen to ANY opposing arguments.
This works both ways. When I share videos of cop misbehavior, such as when they killed a man's pet cat, or shot a little girl, or murdered a man holding a watering hose, or beat a man walking his dog, or threw a blind woman to the ground and killed her seeing-eye dog, or ..... I immediately get accosted by people saying that I should not be criticizing cops. These persons (almost all of them self-proclaimed Democrats) act as if cops can do no wrong and any attempt to show otherwise is met with "You shithead!" and other insults.
It's not a Strawman when people sitting in the white house are saying, "When we pass net neutrality we should also include the fairness doctrine as part of the regulations." (Cass Sunstein and Jones). Or the new Diversity Chair in the FCC saying it's time to revive the fairness doctrine for both broadcast television AND cable news AND internet websites. I've seen the videos/heard the audios myself. Or the Congressman saying MSNBC and FOXnews should be yanked off the air and the internet. Or the White House calling TRUtv and demanding Governor Ventura's Internment Camps episode be pulled from the TV and the web. Or Youtube pulling the 'obama deception' video because they said it's wrong to criticize a sitting president.
As it turns out the NN rules passed are actually harmless, but the FCC was immediately criticized for it, because many say they didn't go far enough to censor websites they don't like (like Alex Jones).
I used to listen to Limbaugh (2002) until I heard him comparing the then-new Prius and Honda Insight hybrids to yugos, and claiming they can't run faster than 55. Well I owned an insight and knew that was a flat lie (its top speed was 120).
More recently he's been saying the Chevy Volt hybrid only goes 40 miles. Limbaugh ought to take a page from Glenn Beck and actually RESEARCH a topic before speaking because while the Volt Electric Mode only goes 40 miles, it also has a gasoline engine that turns-on when the battery is empty. Stupid shithead Rush... I refuse to listen to him anymore because if he can't get that basic tiny fact straight, it makes me wonder what else he's getting wrong.
Please note I'm quoting this from memory.
The actual videos can be found on google.
When the Democrats issue statements like, "We need a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. For example maybe you'll visit foxnews.com and a popup will ask if you want to read democrat.org too. We need to include that as part of net neutrality and other FCC regulations." Or "We need to pass a law to remove MSNBC and FOXnews from cable television." The latter came from a Congressman Kennedy who is a nobody, but the first came from one of the White House "czars" who directly advises the president and the FCC Chair. i.e. A powerful person.
And then of course there's Obama himself who gave a college speech advising them not to read the internet news sites and only listen to WH press releases as "trustworthy" sources of information. (Please note I am Libertarian, so any comment about how I am a "Bush lover" or whatever would be pointless.)
And the more-recent act where TRUtv was ordered by somebody in the White House to pull Governor Ventura's show about FEMA internment camps off the air. i.e. Censorship of a private channel. So if there's confusion by Republicans, it's because of what they are hearing coming out of the Congress and White House own administrators. The message they are sending sounds like anti-free speech rhetoric. Maybe they should stop doing that.
Why not? What crime has been committed by looking at 4chan.com from the privacy of your home? The concept is as ridiculous as saying I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana or walk around naked*. My actions harm no one but myself.
*
*Only control freaks (or christians) would disagree.
Which is why in Virginia a man was arrested for being naked in his own home. Dumbass anti-freedom politicians.
The Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate until Senator Kennedy died. As Obama wisely observed at the start of his presidency, "The Republicans will take a backseat and remain quiet." The Democrats held an unstoppable majority.
Malcolm X once observed in the late sixties, "The Democrats are so powerful, the republicans might well pack their bags and go home." In the previous century, the Democrats controlled the Congress for almost 80 years out of 100. THAT is why I call it the century of the Democrat Congresses.
Denial of Service has been a favored tactic used against the KKK and other undesirable groups for years.
Why can't the same tactic be used against hate-filled corporations? To say "no you can't use the same tactics WE use" is as hypocritical as when cops say "you can't videotape us" while they erect video-cams everywhere.
>>>mostly republicans
Citation please. That would be a remarkable feat, considering the republicans were a super-minority completely and totally dominated by the Democrats (controlled ~60% of the Congress). Speaking as someone outside the power base (i.e. unelected libertarian), I consider myself an impartial observer of the Rep-Dem Duopoly. And I don't comprehend how the republicans can be blamed when it was the Democrats that held the power of Congress for four years. And another ~40 years from 1956 to 1994.
This last century was the century of the Democrat-run Congresses.
So how again is it that we blame the Reps? Makes as little sense as blaming the minority libertarians.
i.e. Citation please.