>>>So you believe that corporations should be allowed to use any old dirty tricks they wan
Strawman argument. NO I do not believe that. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially since I said in other posts that I Do think we need to regulate natural monopolies (electricity, phone, etc). But I also see that in most cases a government does not need to interfere when people have a free market. If I don't like Shitty Grocery Store I can go shop somewhere else, and if I don't like Kmart I can choose Target or Walmart or Macys instead. ----- Good companies succeed and lousy companies are driven into oblivion by the will of the People (via votes with their dollars). .
>>>That approach leads to fascism
No it doesn't. Fascism is very clearly defined as "government-run corporations" which is not what I am endorsing at all (except in the case of natural monopolies).
>>>The idea that MS takes *years* between releases of Windows and Office is completely shredded with the speed that Windows 7 came out..... . Hence they rolled out Windows 7 and by most accounts it is pretty stable
Unimpressed. Windows 7 is just Vista (NT6.0) with bugfixes. So of course it came-out fast. Seven is Vista with a new number - NT 6.1.
Microsoft did exactly the same thing when Windows M.E. flopped: Just took Windows 2000/NT5.0, incremented it to 5.1, and renamed it XP. Microsoft isn't dumb. They take old product (Vista), make a few minor and quick changes, and then convince everyone it's a new product (Mohave/Seven). So that's why I'm unimpressed.
The People drove Circuit City into bankruptcy. Also GM. And Wards. They can do the same with any other corporation they don't like. Look at Blockbuster which is teetering on the verge of death.
Sounds horrible. I don't want to have to change my software every 5 years just because fashion has changed. It's bad enough I have to do that with clothing or cars.
"But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections. Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason." - Franken
Well Mr. Franken..... you could just change providers. VirginMobile doesn't block anything. Neither does Sprint or Clear.
You only need to regulate monopolies where customers have no other choice, not free markets where there are many choices.
>>> zero evidence that any legitimate sites were shut down
Here on slashdot an article was posted that the Union government pulled websites that were *suspected* of sharing files. Many of them were, but some were merely hyperlinking to places like piratebay.org and isohunt.com, or blogs that were misidentified as sharing sites. So there's your evidence that legit sites were shutdown - just need to dig through the/. archives.
You've been modded insightful, but you've not read the ideas coming out of the FCC. Their idea of net neutrality would indeed mean government control - such as the idea the UK Government proposed to block all porn (even nudity) unless the customer specifically asks for it. The FCC also discussed applying the Fairness Doctrine to the web, and 3 strike rules to ban customers for downloading songs (no need for trial - just do it).
I trust corporations more than I do a Monopoly (government). The only time government should interfere is in the case of a utility monopoly like the phone, electric, water, or cable company. But in the case of yanking websites like foxnews.com or msnbc.com (as suggested by Congressman Rockefeller)??? That's taking it too far, but that's what these guys wish to do.
Government is a monopoly - no choice. Corporations are multiple choice - if you don't like one (google, yahoo, sony, microsoft, youtube) then simply choose another.
The only reason government should interfere is in the case of a monopoly, such as the electric monopoly, phone monopoly, or local Comcast monopoly. In places where there is no monopoly (grocery stores, carmakers, wireless internet/cell providers) there's no need to interfere.
As for "early reports", the FCC Chair has said in a speech some of his ideas include making us acquire licenses to setup websites, yanking those same sites w/o a trial if they do something undesirable (which just happened last month), applying a fairness doctrine so that when you visit msnbc.com, you also get a big popup asking if you want to visit foxnews.com too..... and so on.
It violates free speech, free press, and free expression. Liberty works best without limits.
Nah. My blacklist is long enough:google, yahoo, microsoft, sony, comcast,..... Besides Christmas is almost over, so too late to sell my Apple Mac on ebay (I wouldn't get anything). I think I'll just keep it for now. It has 8 gigabytes; that ought to be enough for anybody* and last me a long, long time. Anyway I will not boycott Apple - not just yet.
* * Course I said the same thing about my 8MB Mac Quadra. Hmmm.
>>>just because the modern version uses computers doesn't make it Computer Science. They should just keep calling it typing
That's how the local school monopoly justifies getting handouts from the US Congress (or State Legislature). If they just called it "typing" then they would not qualify for the extra bonus funds, but by calling it "CompSci" they get the extra cash.
>>>You can leave the country too. Or vote a different party in
Or better yet. Enforce the Supreme Law's interstate clause and amendments 9/10 which collectively forbid the Congress from forcing a private citizen to buy a product. "The purpose of a constitution is to bind-up the government so that, when they transgress, their laws shall be nullities." - Thomas Jefferson, 1780s
As for Verizon I don't elect the CEO. That's true. But then I don't buy Verizon product either, so I don't care. Mr. Jackass CEO has no power over me. That's the advantage of a Capitalist free market over the Government. While XYZ company might suck, I also am not forced to deal with them. In contrast there's no way to escape the Monopoly of government.
There was a case where some woman accused a College basketball(?) team of rape. The school had a fit, suspended the accused players, and even suspended all games for the season. The players received a lot of hate from fellow students, newpaper reporters, and so on. The players had a motive to lie to save themselves, their team, and their scholarship.
By your reasoning the woman wins ("remains credible"). But in reality she was questioned by police, found to have holes in her story, and eventually admitted she had been lying. I think that's the case here - two women lying. And even if they were telling the truth, there's no way to prove it. So "not guilty" by lack of evidence. A US Judge would dismiss this case in about 30 minutes.
High school has to deal with a wide range of talents. From geek to tech school student. My CS class was done on ancient TRS-80s and first taught typing, then BASIC, and a final project to create your own program (anything you wished) of at least 100 lines.
For me and my friends it was a ridiculously-easy course. For most of the other students, they barely passed. I imagine today's CS courses are much the same, dealing with a wide range of students, many of whom will probably never program outside this one class.
There is no evidence this happened. All we have is two women who were apparently happy with Julian, but then they met each other and discovered he was two-timing, and suddenly the women weren't happy. i.e. We only have their word and their word is suspect, because they have motive to lie (to get back at the creep).
China is a National Socialist state (aka "corporatism" to use Mussolini's wording).
Do you think Facebook would be allowed in 1930s Germany, or Italy, or Spain? No way. Likewise the free communication of ideas will never be allowed in modern Natsosh China, as that twitter girl discovered when she copied a Newspaper article that was disallowed by the state. I'm surprised they haven't had book burnings yet, but maybe that will come soon, courtesy of the Minitru.
Of course that last example is no longer a free market, is it? Hospital insurance is [NOW] a government-enforced purchase. What happened to freedom of choice? Or Pro-Choice democracy? Next I suppose americans will be fined ~$1000 a year if they buy a 2011 or 2012 "normal" car instead of a hybrid car. Or ~$100 surcharge for buying an Apple instead of a PC with Microsoft on it. Once the precedent of mandating what Americans should buy is set, there's no limit to what the US government could require we buy.
At least with the free market I have choice NOT to buy from the wealth capitalists/corporations. I don't have to buy Comcast service (and don't). I don't have to buy Microsoft Office or an Apple Mac. I don't have to buy a GM car or food from McDonalds. I don't have to buy hospital insurance..... oh. Never mind.;-)
(Of course that last example is no longer a free market, is it? It's not a government-enforced purchase.)
It's my understanding that Amazon, Visa, Paypal, etc were *directed* by the government to pull the plug. Or else they would be audited. (Which Paypal has already experienced once & doesn't want again.)
Perhaps I'm wrong but it's what I heard, and it's believable considering the White House ordered TruTV to stop airing Governor Ventura's "concentration camps" episode. Okay so maybe Ventura's a nut, but if it can happen to the TruTV corporation then it can happen to any corporation. So per usual, the corporations are the puppets, and the true master is in either Congress or the White House. (Or maybe "collusion" is a better word - corps donate money; politicians gives corps bailout money.) .
>>>lots of companies give VITAL services.
Like what? What does the internet provide that can not be done anywhere else? Banking? I can do that in person. Shopping? Ditto. Television? No I can erect an antenna, or sign with CATV, or buy the DVDs when they are released. Or listen to the radio instead for news/weather. ----- Anyway I don't think the internet is a necessity..... maybe someday it will be, like the landline phone (for 911) or electricity (for heat), but not yet. It's still a luxury like videogame consoles or cellphones.
Just the monopolies. Those ISPs that are not monopolies don't need regulation, just as grocery stores don't need regulation. If you want Oreo cookies and your store refuses to carry them, just buy from another store. Ditto if your Wireless ISP refuses to carry msnbc.com - just switch to another wireless ISP.
But if the ISP is a monopoly or duopoly (like Comcast/Verizon) then yes it needs to be regulated, price-fixed, and so on, just like the local power monopoly is regulated.
And even those who it for the betterment of citizens, won't live forever. Their benevolent dictatorship (example: Augustus Caesar) eventually leads to a non-benevolent tyrant (ex: Nero) that uses his centralized power for evil instead of good. It's not so much the present we must fear, but ten years down the road.
And even benevolent dictators are not that great. Who would want to live under the old Middle Ages Christendom, where the Pope was the final authority in Europe? I'd rather not have morals dictated to me. I should have the free choice to follow my own path, even if the Pope or others think I am being selfish.
Yet another company to add to my blacklist of companies not to buy from: ----- Google, Yahoo, MS, Amazon, Comcast, Sony. Man this thing is getting long (and it looks my new console will be a Nintendo).
They'd make us acquire licenses to setup websites, yank those same sites w/o a trial (which just happened last month), apply a fairness doctrine so that when you visit msnbc.com, you also get a big popup asking if you want to visit foxnews.com too..... and so on. (Taken from the FCC Chair's own speech.)
It violates free speech, free press, and free expression. Liberty works best without limits.
>>>we must conclude that MSNBC is more factual (since their viewers know more facts). This would disprove your claim of equal bias.
Whatever.
At the end of the day FOX is still watched by 4 times as many viewers as MSNBC - why? Because it is close to where most Middle Americans lie in their views. Most americans DON'T want government ordering them around. but instead want to be Pro-choice and make their own decisions in life. FOX represents that view while MSNBC represents the opposite "let government run your house" viewpoint.
>>>So what exactly is wrong with the way the poll was conducted?
Well let's take the "Is Obama a natural born American" question. The survey-runners assume the answer is "yes" but the REAL answer is "uncertain". Yes they produced a birth certificate, but it's just a piece of paper and easily forged. (In fact I could print one right now showing I was born in Hawaii w/o too much difficulty.) Wise people who took this survey & answered "uncertain" are assumed by the survey to be "wrong" or "misinformed". In my mind that alone invalidates the survey because oftentimes the one, best answer is uncertain. See Physics and the Uncertainty Principle (we can know a particle's momentum or position, but not both at the same time).
The other flaw:
The survey is based upon 3 cherry-picked questions and ~400 individuals. That is not statistically significant, nor is the same size large enough to extrapolate to the whole nation. We also don't know how these individuals were selected - is it truly a random sample representing all colors, sexes, political views, geographic location??? Doubtful.
This is dumb. Does this mean jurors can't reference Britannica either? Or Websters Dictionary? It seems kinda silly the jury must be kept ignorant. What if you do not know the meaning of the words you hear in the courtroom, like "hearsay" or "sustained".
No wonder we see Innocent people being sent to jail on flimsy evidence like "he was leaning over the body & breathing into her mouth". (20+ years later DNA evidence proved that guy was not the killer.) Our juries are not informed enough to do a proper job.
700 MB is still the most common size found on isohunt.com searches.
And while SOME like yourself may prefer higher-quality 1500 or 3000 MB HDTV rips, I actually prefer the opposite. I look for those "NapisyPL" rips that are 70 or 150 MB, or on ipodnova.com for 250 MB rips, since they can be downloaded in about ten minutes.
Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome."
on
Browsing the Body
·
· Score: 1
What's this "You must wait 6 hours to post a second comment" nonsense??? (shrug)
Try this: - Firefox 4 beta - SeaMonkey 2.1 beta - Amiga iBrowse 4 - Opera 11 - Or Mozilla Netscape 10 - (just joking) .
Slashdot Mirror
>>>So you believe that corporations should be allowed to use any old dirty tricks they wan
Strawman argument. NO I do not believe that. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially since I said in other posts that I Do think we need to regulate natural monopolies (electricity, phone, etc). But I also see that in most cases a government does not need to interfere when people have a free market. If I don't like Shitty Grocery Store I can go shop somewhere else, and if I don't like Kmart I can choose Target or Walmart or Macys instead. ----- Good companies succeed and lousy companies are driven into oblivion by the will of the People (via votes with their dollars).
.
>>>That approach leads to fascism
No it doesn't. Fascism is very clearly defined as "government-run corporations" which is not what I am endorsing at all (except in the case of natural monopolies).
>>>The idea that MS takes *years* between releases of Windows and Office is completely shredded with the speed that Windows 7 came out..... . Hence they rolled out Windows 7 and by most accounts it is pretty stable
Unimpressed.
Windows 7 is just Vista (NT6.0) with bugfixes.
So of course it came-out fast. Seven is Vista with a new number - NT 6.1.
Microsoft did exactly the same thing when Windows M.E. flopped: Just took Windows 2000/NT5.0, incremented it to 5.1, and renamed it XP. Microsoft isn't dumb. They take old product (Vista), make a few minor and quick changes, and then convince everyone it's a new product (Mohave/Seven). So that's why I'm unimpressed.
The People drove Circuit City into bankruptcy.
Also GM.
And Wards.
They can do the same with any other corporation they don't like. Look at Blockbuster which is teetering on the verge of death.
Sounds horrible. I don't want to have to change my software every 5 years just because fashion has changed. It's bad enough I have to do that with clothing or cars.
"But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections. Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason." - Franken
Well Mr. Franken..... you could just change providers. VirginMobile doesn't block anything. Neither does Sprint or Clear.
You only need to regulate monopolies where customers have no other choice, not free markets where there are many choices.
>>> zero evidence that any legitimate sites were shut down
Here on slashdot an article was posted that the Union government pulled websites that were *suspected* of sharing files. Many of them were, but some were merely hyperlinking to places like piratebay.org and isohunt.com, or blogs that were misidentified as sharing sites. So there's your evidence that legit sites were shutdown - just need to dig through the /. archives.
You've been modded insightful, but you've not read the ideas coming out of the FCC. Their idea of net neutrality would indeed mean government control - such as the idea the UK Government proposed to block all porn (even nudity) unless the customer specifically asks for it. The FCC also discussed applying the Fairness Doctrine to the web, and 3 strike rules to ban customers for downloading songs (no need for trial - just do it).
I trust corporations more than I do a Monopoly (government). The only time government should interfere is in the case of a utility monopoly like the phone, electric, water, or cable company. But in the case of yanking websites like foxnews.com or msnbc.com (as suggested by Congressman Rockefeller)??? That's taking it too far, but that's what these guys wish to do.
Government is a monopoly - no choice. Corporations are multiple choice - if you don't like one (google, yahoo, sony, microsoft, youtube) then simply choose another.
The only reason government should interfere is in the case of a monopoly, such as the electric monopoly, phone monopoly, or local Comcast monopoly. In places where there is no monopoly (grocery stores, carmakers, wireless internet/cell providers) there's no need to interfere.
As for "early reports", the FCC Chair has said in a speech some of his ideas include making us acquire licenses to setup websites, yanking those same sites w/o a trial if they do something undesirable (which just happened last month), applying a fairness doctrine so that when you visit msnbc.com, you also get a big popup asking if you want to visit foxnews.com too..... and so on.
It violates free speech, free press, and free expression. Liberty works best without limits.
>>>BOYCOTT APPLE.
Nah. My blacklist is long enough:google, yahoo, microsoft, sony, comcast, ..... Besides Christmas is almost over, so too late to sell my Apple Mac on ebay (I wouldn't get anything). I think I'll just keep it for now. It has 8 gigabytes; that ought to be enough for anybody* and last me a long, long time. Anyway I will not boycott Apple - not just yet.
*
* Course I said the same thing about my 8MB Mac Quadra. Hmmm.
>>>just because the modern version uses computers doesn't make it Computer Science. They should just keep calling it typing
That's how the local school monopoly justifies getting handouts from the US Congress (or State Legislature). If they just called it "typing" then they would not qualify for the extra bonus funds, but by calling it "CompSci" they get the extra cash.
Man I'm cynical.
>>>You can leave the country too. Or vote a different party in
Or better yet. Enforce the Supreme Law's interstate clause and amendments 9/10 which collectively forbid the Congress from forcing a private citizen to buy a product. "The purpose of a constitution is to bind-up the government so that, when they transgress, their laws shall be nullities." - Thomas Jefferson, 1780s
As for Verizon I don't elect the CEO. That's true. But then I don't buy Verizon product either, so I don't care. Mr. Jackass CEO has no power over me. That's the advantage of a Capitalist free market over the Government. While XYZ company might suck, I also am not forced to deal with them. In contrast there's no way to escape the Monopoly of government.
Not really.
There was a case where some woman accused a College basketball(?) team of rape. The school had a fit, suspended the accused players, and even suspended all games for the season. The players received a lot of hate from fellow students, newpaper reporters, and so on. The players had a motive to lie to save themselves, their team, and their scholarship.
By your reasoning the woman wins ("remains credible"). But in reality she was questioned by police, found to have holes in her story, and eventually admitted she had been lying. I think that's the case here - two women lying. And even if they were telling the truth, there's no way to prove it. So "not guilty" by lack of evidence. A US Judge would dismiss this case in about 30 minutes.
The Swedes should too.
High school has to deal with a wide range of talents. From geek to tech school student. My CS class was done on ancient TRS-80s and first taught typing, then BASIC, and a final project to create your own program (anything you wished) of at least 100 lines.
For me and my friends it was a ridiculously-easy course. For most of the other students, they barely passed. I imagine today's CS courses are much the same, dealing with a wide range of students, many of whom will probably never program outside this one class.
>>>in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent
There is no evidence this happened. All we have is two women who were apparently happy with Julian, but then they met each other and discovered he was two-timing, and suddenly the women weren't happy. i.e. We only have their word and their word is suspect, because they have motive to lie (to get back at the creep).
China is a National Socialist state (aka "corporatism" to use Mussolini's wording).
Do you think Facebook would be allowed in 1930s Germany, or Italy, or Spain? No way. Likewise the free communication of ideas will never be allowed in modern Natsosh China, as that twitter girl discovered when she copied a Newspaper article that was disallowed by the state. I'm surprised they haven't had book burnings yet, but maybe that will come soon, courtesy of the Minitru.
CORRECTION:
Of course that last example is no longer a free market, is it? Hospital insurance is [NOW] a government-enforced purchase. What happened to freedom of choice? Or Pro-Choice democracy? Next I suppose americans will be fined ~$1000 a year if they buy a 2011 or 2012 "normal" car instead of a hybrid car. Or ~$100 surcharge for buying an Apple instead of a PC with Microsoft on it. Once the precedent of mandating what Americans should buy is set, there's no limit to what the US government could require we buy.
At least with the free market I have choice NOT to buy from the wealth capitalists/corporations. I don't have to buy Comcast service (and don't). I don't have to buy Microsoft Office or an Apple Mac. I don't have to buy a GM car or food from McDonalds. I don't have to buy hospital insurance..... oh. Never mind. ;-)
(Of course that last example is no longer a free market, is it? It's not a government-enforced purchase.)
It's my understanding that Amazon, Visa, Paypal, etc were *directed* by the government to pull the plug. Or else they would be audited. (Which Paypal has already experienced once & doesn't want again.)
Perhaps I'm wrong but it's what I heard, and it's believable considering the White House ordered TruTV to stop airing Governor Ventura's "concentration camps" episode. Okay so maybe Ventura's a nut, but if it can happen to the TruTV corporation then it can happen to any corporation. So per usual, the corporations are the puppets, and the true master is in either Congress or the White House. (Or maybe "collusion" is a better word - corps donate money; politicians gives corps bailout money.)
.
>>>lots of companies give VITAL services.
Like what? What does the internet provide that can not be done anywhere else? Banking? I can do that in person. Shopping? Ditto. Television? No I can erect an antenna, or sign with CATV, or buy the DVDs when they are released. Or listen to the radio instead for news/weather. ----- Anyway I don't think the internet is a necessity..... maybe someday it will be, like the landline phone (for 911) or electricity (for heat), but not yet. It's still a luxury like videogame consoles or cellphones.
>>>for regulation of the isps.
Just the monopolies. Those ISPs that are not monopolies don't need regulation, just as grocery stores don't need regulation. If you want Oreo cookies and your store refuses to carry them, just buy from another store. Ditto if your Wireless ISP refuses to carry msnbc.com - just switch to another wireless ISP.
But if the ISP is a monopoly or duopoly (like Comcast/Verizon) then yes it needs to be regulated, price-fixed, and so on, just like the local power monopoly is regulated.
>>>They do it purely out of self-interest
And even those who it for the betterment of citizens, won't live forever. Their benevolent dictatorship (example: Augustus Caesar) eventually leads to a non-benevolent tyrant (ex: Nero) that uses his centralized power for evil instead of good. It's not so much the present we must fear, but ten years down the road.
And even benevolent dictators are not that great. Who would want to live under the old Middle Ages Christendom, where the Pope was the final authority in Europe? I'd rather not have morals dictated to me. I should have the free choice to follow my own path, even if the Pope or others think I am being selfish.
Yet another company to add to my blacklist of companies not to buy from:
----- Google, Yahoo, MS, Amazon, Comcast, Sony. Man this thing is getting long (and it looks my new console will be a Nintendo).
They'd make us acquire licenses to setup websites, yank those same sites w/o a trial (which just happened last month), apply a fairness doctrine so that when you visit msnbc.com, you also get a big popup asking if you want to visit foxnews.com too..... and so on. (Taken from the FCC Chair's own speech.)
It violates free speech, free press, and free expression. Liberty works best without limits.
>>>we must conclude that MSNBC is more factual (since their viewers know more facts). This would disprove your claim of equal bias.
Whatever.
At the end of the day FOX is still watched by 4 times as many viewers as MSNBC - why? Because it is close to where most Middle Americans lie in their views. Most americans DON'T want government ordering them around. but instead want to be Pro-choice and make their own decisions in life. FOX represents that view while MSNBC represents the opposite "let government run your house" viewpoint.
>>>So what exactly is wrong with the way the poll was conducted?
Well let's take the "Is Obama a natural born American" question. The survey-runners assume the answer is "yes" but the REAL answer is "uncertain". Yes they produced a birth certificate, but it's just a piece of paper and easily forged. (In fact I could print one right now showing I was born in Hawaii w/o too much difficulty.) Wise people who took this survey & answered "uncertain" are assumed by the survey to be "wrong" or "misinformed". In my mind that alone invalidates the survey because oftentimes the one, best answer is uncertain. See Physics and the Uncertainty Principle (we can know a particle's momentum or position, but not both at the same time).
The other flaw:
The survey is based upon 3 cherry-picked questions and ~400 individuals. That is not statistically significant, nor is the same size large enough to extrapolate to the whole nation. We also don't know how these individuals were selected - is it truly a random sample representing all colors, sexes, political views, geographic location??? Doubtful.
This is dumb. Does this mean jurors can't reference Britannica either? Or Websters Dictionary? It seems kinda silly the jury must be kept ignorant. What if you do not know the meaning of the words you hear in the courtroom, like "hearsay" or "sustained".
No wonder we see Innocent people being sent to jail on flimsy evidence like "he was leaning over the body & breathing into her mouth". (20+ years later DNA evidence proved that guy was not the killer.) Our juries are not informed enough to do a proper job.
700 MB is still the most common size found on isohunt.com searches.
And while SOME like yourself may prefer higher-quality 1500 or 3000 MB HDTV rips, I actually prefer the opposite. I look for those "NapisyPL" rips that are 70 or 150 MB, or on ipodnova.com for 250 MB rips, since they can be downloaded in about ten minutes.
What's this "You must wait 6 hours to post a second comment" nonsense??? (shrug)
Try this:
- Firefox 4 beta
- SeaMonkey 2.1 beta
- Amiga iBrowse 4
- Opera 11
- Or Mozilla Netscape 10 - (just joking)
.