>>>Obama is best described as moderate conservative.
Hahahahaha. Hardly. Obama is almost as far left as politicians like Mao or Lenin. i.e. Pro-big-government, but Obama still supports private ownership of the land.
Meanwhile the Republicans lie in the middle (some pro-government; some anti-government), while someone like Ron Paul or Thomas Jefferson (libertarian) lies on the right. An anarchist would lie on the far right.
>>>If cable monopolies were broken up the government would have to then take ownership of the lines.
I'd be okay with that. The government already owns my water and sewer lines, and they do a competent job. I'd be alright with them owning the Internet/TV Fiber under the street, and then leasing it to whichever company I desire.
Or: Let Comcast keep ownership, and require them to lease to competitors, just the same way the Phone lines operate (owned by Bell but my provider is ATT).
Why do you get modded "interesting" for your FOX bashing, but I get modded "troll" for MSNBC bashing? I guess we now know where the Moderators bias lies.
Note this is just a joke:
I just imagined an "MS-NBC Internet". Imagine this - a web portal and search engine that will give you just Microsoft and GE/NBC/Comcast narrative. Watch Maddow and she mentions something and she says, "Don't believe me! Read for yourself!" So you search on BING.net and come across MSwiki and it says The Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE myth created as an excuse for wealth transfer and for more corporate monopolies.
Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core
on
How Do Browsers Scale?
·
· Score: 1
Links? Did you mean Lynx? Seriously, if you are going to start your argument frofrom there I see no point in continuing, since you seem trapped in the prior century.
Yeah the WSJ article is one giant fail. The reporter does even worse research than Glenn Beck.
TODAY'S EPA standards are cleaner than ambient air, but they weren't back in 1975. The standards were about 100 times dirtier than today's LEV-II cars.
Of course I don't overload Fiefox with a lot of crap. My only addons are PornZo... er, I mean ImageZoom, NoScript, and 1-click Youtube Downloader. (I used to have WOT but grew tired of false blocks of harmless sites like foxnews,com.) Fewer addons equal leaner memory usage.
Right now my FF 3.6 is only using 185 megs with 9 tabs plus 1 floating window (radio). That's smaller than what IE8 or Opera 10.5, which use about twice as much.
Re:Conclusion: Firefox 3.6 scales best across core
on
How Do Browsers Scale?
·
· Score: 1
Nope. The only takeaway you need is:
Nothing is as fast as Links.
-and- Chrome v. Firefox Browser fanboys today are as silly as Atari v. Commodore fanboys back-in-the-day.
Ya know - it helps if you read the actual bills your Democrat Congress passes.
For example the ability of the FBI to demand copies of your cellphone bills/locations without warrant? It's in the recently-passed Financial Reform bill. I've seen the language in the bill myself.
>>>Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change.
Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me
Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. Rolling our individual liberty back 400 years, like serfs, is true conservativism. .
>>>Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right.
Maybe in the UK but not in the US. The networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC all lean left and it's been that way since the 1950s. The only right-leaning channel is FOX News and that's a recent development (it didn't pass 50% coverage until 2002). .
>>>Without Net Neutrality laws very soon.....
Or we could just break-up the Cable monopolies. If I were free to choose Comcast or Cox or Time or Cablevision or GoogleTV or Verizon or ATTT or..... it wouldn't matter if they chose to block websites. I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores. Companies would quickly realize that censoring the net is a sure way to lose customers, and stop doing it.
>>>when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote
You believe the shit on democrat-leaning MSNBC. How are you any better? (rolls eyes) I can't believe you'd even suggest such an anti-democratic idea as saying FOX News viewers should not be allowed to vote. Here's a thought: Maybe you could do what FDR did in the 40s and round-up the Americans you don't like, and send them to concentration camps? That's how FDR stopped people from voting, simple because they had asian grandparents or parents.
Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.
You mention "Murdoch" but I think "Obama" better fits your description. Or "Pelosi". In just 3 and a half years of a Democrat-run Congress we have:
- increased our national deficit from 1/2 trillion to 1.5 trillion per year - renewed the Patriot Act, and also expanded it with new spying powers - taken away Citizens of a Member State ability to self-police/arrest criminals (arizona) - okay'd a single man (whoever is current president) having a kill switch to interrupt free speech on the net - - taken away the right to buy health insurance (or be fined if you choose not to) - given police power to track people via GPS on cars - redefined cell companies as "financial companies" enabling the FBI to obtain your cellphone bills/records without requiring a warrant (just passed last month)
I'll stop there because you probably assume I'm lying to you, but it's all true. ' Just look-up what Congress did in 2007,8,9, and 10. You fear Murdoch? I fear the US Congress (D) more.
>>>Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have no inherent interest in shaping the internet into a pure 'consume, consume, consume' form.
(gives poster odd look) What???
>>>Not familiar with Steve Burke so not going to comment on him.
Me neither but I know Comcast (or more properly: Comsucks). I can see the previous acts he did as COO, and now he'll be CEO of the new maerged company.
You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:
"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."
You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took over, and so too were these pre-digital technicians.
I just imagined an "MS-NBC Internet". Imagine this - a web portal and search engine that will give you just Microsoft and GE/NBC/Comcast narrative. Watch Maddow and she mentions something and she says, "Don't believe me! Read for yourself!" So you search on BING.net and come across MSwiki and it says The Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE myth created as an excuse for wealth transfer and for more corporate monopolies.
As with the mechanical vs. real horses, the ultimate choice will be left to the consumer, and either Mr. Murdoch will be right and win, or he will be wrong and go out of business.
It's the ultimate in democracy - people voting with their dollars what kind of web they want to see.
This article could be summarized as: "Five times during the cold war, dead people almost turned into zombies and reeked havoc. But fortunately, they stayed dead." - It's nonsense and worthless fear mongering. I can't believe this was even approved by/.
>>>even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.
If the clauses are unenforceable inside the state, then it doesn't need to be crossed out. It's automatically null-and-void. I would have signed the contract rather than lose the money, and only concerned myself with those bits that are legally enforceable (like how easy can you be terminated).
>>>Victims are willingly tricked into deals designed to hurt them. But that's not enough to make it legal, let alone ethical.
It's not government's job to protect us from making bad decisions (as if we were children). We are not truly free, unless we are also free to be stupid stuff like smoke marijuana, drink until we die, or participate in foolish monetary transactions (like lottery tickets that have almost-zero odds of paying off).
>>>When all companies in a market have an arbitration clause in their contracts, the people can't choose an alternative
Bullshit.
You always have a right to drag the father-fuckers at Comcast or Verizon or Sprint into a US court room. Stop spreading misinformation that you don't have that right.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Obama is best described as moderate conservative.
Hahahahaha. Hardly. Obama is almost as far left as politicians like Mao or Lenin. i.e. Pro-big-government, but Obama still supports private ownership of the land.
Meanwhile the Republicans lie in the middle (some pro-government; some anti-government), while someone like Ron Paul or Thomas Jefferson (libertarian) lies on the right. An anarchist would lie on the far right.
>>>If cable monopolies were broken up the government would have to then take ownership of the lines.
I'd be okay with that. The government already owns my water and sewer lines, and they do a competent job. I'd be alright with them owning the Internet/TV Fiber under the street, and then leasing it to whichever company I desire.
Or: Let Comcast keep ownership, and require them to lease to competitors, just the same way the Phone lines operate (owned by Bell but my provider is ATT).
Why do you get modded "interesting" for your FOX bashing, but I get modded "troll" for MSNBC bashing? I guess we now know where the Moderators bias lies.
Note this is just a joke:
I just imagined an "MS-NBC Internet". Imagine this - a web portal and search engine that will give you just Microsoft and GE/NBC/Comcast narrative. Watch Maddow and she mentions something and she says, "Don't believe me! Read for yourself!" So you search on BING.net and come across MSwiki and it says The Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE myth created as an excuse for wealth transfer and for more corporate monopolies.
Links? Did you mean Lynx? Seriously, if you are going to start your argument frofrom there I see no point in continuing, since you seem trapped in the prior century.
Epic Fail.
Or Epic Redface?
Or Epic Pie-on-face?
Yeah the WSJ article is one giant fail.
The reporter does even worse research than Glenn Beck.
TODAY'S EPA standards are cleaner than ambient air, but they weren't back in 1975. The standards were about 100 times dirtier than today's LEV-II cars.
Wet with a chance of noisy lines & 24k dialup.
P.S.
Of course I don't overload Fiefox with a lot of crap. My only addons are PornZo... er, I mean ImageZoom, NoScript, and 1-click Youtube Downloader. (I used to have WOT but grew tired of false blocks of harmless sites like foxnews,com.) Fewer addons equal leaner memory usage.
(checks)
Right now my FF 3.6 is only using 185 megs with 9 tabs plus 1 floating window (radio). That's smaller than what IE8 or Opera 10.5, which use about twice as much.
Nope. The only takeaway you need is:
Nothing is as fast as Links.
-and-
Chrome v. Firefox Browser fanboys today are as silly as Atari v. Commodore fanboys back-in-the-day.
-and- :-)
I like Netscape/seaMonkey.
Ya know - it helps if you read the actual bills your Democrat Congress passes.
For example the ability of the FBI to demand copies of your cellphone bills/locations without warrant? It's in the recently-passed Financial Reform bill. I've seen the language in the bill myself.
>>>Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change.
Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me
Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. Rolling our individual liberty back 400 years, like serfs, is true conservativism.
.
>>>Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right.
Maybe in the UK but not in the US. The networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC all lean left and it's been that way since the 1950s. The only right-leaning channel is FOX News and that's a recent development (it didn't pass 50% coverage until 2002).
.
>>>Without Net Neutrality laws very soon.....
Or we could just break-up the Cable monopolies. If I were free to choose Comcast or Cox or Time or Cablevision or GoogleTV or Verizon or ATTT or..... it wouldn't matter if they chose to block websites. I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores. Companies would quickly realize that censoring the net is a sure way to lose customers, and stop doing it.
>>>when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote
You believe the shit on democrat-leaning MSNBC. How are you any better? (rolls eyes) I can't believe you'd even suggest such an anti-democratic idea as saying FOX News viewers should not be allowed to vote. Here's a thought: Maybe you could do what FDR did in the 40s and round-up the Americans you don't like, and send them to concentration camps? That's how FDR stopped people from voting, simple because they had asian grandparents or parents.
Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.
You mention "Murdoch" but I think "Obama" better fits your description. Or "Pelosi". In just 3 and a half years of a Democrat-run Congress we have:
- increased our national deficit from 1/2 trillion to 1.5 trillion per year
- renewed the Patriot Act, and also expanded it with new spying powers
- taken away Citizens of a Member State ability to self-police/arrest criminals (arizona)
- okay'd a single man (whoever is current president) having a kill switch to interrupt free speech on the net
-
- taken away the right to buy health insurance (or be fined if you choose not to)
- given police power to track people via GPS on cars
- redefined cell companies as "financial companies" enabling the FBI to obtain your cellphone bills/records without requiring a warrant (just passed last month)
I'll stop there because you probably assume I'm lying to you, but it's all true. '
Just look-up what Congress did in 2007,8,9, and 10. You fear Murdoch?
I fear the US Congress (D) more.
No. Adding video interviews because more-and-more people are no longer stuck on dialup - That is the progress.
Real hunters wear nose pinchers, otherwise they'd pass out from the reeking zombies.
>>>Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have no inherent interest in shaping the internet into a pure 'consume, consume, consume' form.
(gives poster odd look)
What???
>>>Not familiar with Steve Burke so not going to comment on him.
Me neither but I know Comcast (or more properly: Comsucks). I can see the previous acts he did as COO, and now he'll be CEO of the new maerged company.
You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:
"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."
You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took over, and so too were these pre-digital technicians.
>>>Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things
If I accept your viewpoint, then I fear Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Steve Burke (NBC-comcast's new CEO) more than murdoch.
I just imagined an "MS-NBC Internet". Imagine this - a web portal and search engine that will give you just Microsoft and GE/NBC/Comcast narrative. Watch Maddow and she mentions something and she says, "Don't believe me! Read for yourself!" So you search on BING.net and come across MSwiki and it says The Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE myth created as an excuse for wealth transfer and for more corporate monopolies.
As with the mechanical vs. real horses, the ultimate choice will be left to the consumer, and either Mr. Murdoch will be right and win, or he will be wrong and go out of business.
It's the ultimate in democracy - people voting with their dollars what kind of web they want to see.
Pretty much.
This article could be summarized as: "Five times during the cold war, dead people almost turned into zombies and reeked havoc. But fortunately, they stayed dead." - It's nonsense and worthless fear mongering. I can't believe this was even approved by /.
>>>even if you say 'this is not enforceable in XYZ state' they won't back off.
If the clauses are unenforceable inside the state, then it doesn't need to be crossed out. It's automatically null-and-void. I would have signed the contract rather than lose the money, and only concerned myself with those bits that are legally enforceable (like how easy can you be terminated).
>>>since congress did not remove the arbitration clauses, why are they saying they did
The Congress has the right to lie.
So too does the EU Parliament.
Take credit for things that were performed by a completely separate government (MN).
>>>Victims are willingly tricked into deals designed to hurt them. But that's not enough to make it legal, let alone ethical.
It's not government's job to protect us from making bad decisions (as if we were children). We are not truly free, unless we are also free to be stupid stuff like smoke marijuana, drink until we die, or participate in foolish monetary transactions (like lottery tickets that have almost-zero odds of paying off).
>>>When all companies in a market have an arbitration clause in their contracts, the people can't choose an alternative
Bullshit.
You always have a right to drag the father-fuckers at Comcast or Verizon or Sprint into a US court room. Stop spreading misinformation that you don't have that right.