They pay attention to him so much because he's loud, and a lot of people, especially the extreme right, listen to him. If he didn't garner so much attention from people who are actually conservative, or possibly even dominate as much of national radio as he does, then it probably wouldn't be an issue, but he does on both counts, so he gets attention.... Well, that, and he's easy to mock.
Just a quick question - Do you read what you type after you type it?
What you wrote just there was basically the epitome of a paranoid conspiracy rant, addressing not only the evils of big media, but also the evils of education, vitamins, and medicine.
It's nice you have an opinion, but, although the media does have a lot of sway over voters - to the point where it is a bit concerning - it's hardly the main reason that government is so fucked up. A better place to look, if anywhere, would be the two party system, corporate lobbying, the apathetic masses, and the lack of a reliable way for congressmen to judge public opinion, except through the filter of interest groups.
As a side note, animals get tumors all the time, they just aren't always visible (i.e. how many cancer patients do you see with visible evidence of tumors?). Not every tumor is one of the fancy stone-sized lumps bulging out of the head, or w/e you expected.
Then you have the problem where kids are told to go research something for an assignment, and the sources they found outside of school no longer work once they get to the computer lab much more often than even with vanilla blockers in place.
There really isn't any good solution that will work for all parties involved for this problem. If you allow access to more content, you're pissing off parents, and if you restrict access, you're making it more difficult for student's to make use of the Internet.
Either way, though, the entire conversation is moot in the end. It's not hard to circumvent most filters, especially in the case where the school lets kids use laptops for school work (which is only in the children's best interest). It's nice that the school cares about preventing students from getting off task, but any dedicated student will find their way around it, and share that solution with anyone else who wants to deviate from the approved list of websites.
It's not that hard to figure out why somebody would boycott apple - itunes is filled with bloat, macs and ipods are too expensive and difficult to mod, and apple has the tendency to make their products not play nice with other products or formats.
You know, you can say that you don't mind if newer iterations don't innovate, but, really, if a series doesn't innovate, what does it hear from reviewers?
"Stale," "uninspired," "same old same old," and so on.
Really, the developer gets shafted either way, so they might as well try the route that sometimes gives them great reviews.
The symptom will only be cured once the disease is fixed.
The argument is that the free exposure to people who have nothing to lose besides time for listening to your music will help replace the lost sales.
People are more willing to buy things they know are good, due either to a friend's recommendation, or a free trial via bittorrent.
To be honest, I can't help but see how it doesn't make sense. This is why the radio, and other legal forms of free media exist - to help spread the word about artists and their songs to people who wouldn't otherwise buy them.
if anything, this'll become a big joke on *chan and the other sites. I'm sure that, if anyone even notices, the only reaction will be laughter and mocking, as is generally the case on the internet.
Just because one person might not be able to fully appreciate the advantages of broadband does not mean that another person cannot. The advantages of a faster internet are blurry, and become difficult to discern once you stay in one speed range for too long.
For instance, although almost anyone can probably adjust to a 56k connection, how many people with that connection speed will surf in the same way as I, or, really, most other people with a faster internet connection surfs? For instance, I probably would stay away from downloads, especially large ones, and any sort of non-text instant communications, as opposed to reality, where I've replaced TV with my computer, and I can feel disconnected if I don't have a picture to accompany the text on screen.
This isn't even considering the difficulties of switching between the internet and the phone operating on the same lines.
The advantage may not be immediately visible, but, although most people probably won't recognize it immediately, everyone will likely benefit from a faster Internet connection in the long term.
Sorry, browser got fucked up while replying. Responding to the post below:
people need to stop worrying about whether or not something is or is not "socialist"
I live in a small rural cul de sac. The road is about 40cm lower than my garage, so my driveway is runs downhill a ways before reaching the street. Most of the homes around here have the same sort of thing.
In the winter time, when it gets very icy, I've seen many of neighbors lose control of their cars and run off into the grass or in the worst case hit a tree near the sidewalk. In every single case, the drivers felt like they could successfully guide their vehicle down the ramp, but it always ends up the same. The first few feet seem okay, but soon afterward gravity kicks in and the tires lose their grip.
That we should disregard labels and accept some socialist ideas is exactly what I would expect a communist or a wet-behind-the-ears college kid to say. It reminds of my driveway in the winter. It's like an icy ramp. Once you start out on the path, there's no turning back until you lose all control and crash into your neighbor's fence and tear up his tulip bed.
So what you're saying, to put it in a nice, tidy little box, is that it's a slippery slope?
That's pretty much the first logical fallacy we learned in English class. You can't make the jump from government mandated internet connections to a sudden decision that, hey, maybe Soviet Russia did have it right.
It's one thing to think critically of something, and it's another entirely to be openly critical of what would be a genuinely beneficial policy for the people because of plainly faulty logic.
It's nice to see that you're eager to fix the issue, but in this case, unless there's a threat to us being seriously attacked, we should probably just leave well enough alone.
I wouldn't say that. Instead, I'd blame ignorance and scare tactics. I can see my parents, or many others I know, overlooking legal advice when threatened with a threat of this magnitude. The fault is in system, not with the parents.
So they should die because they're stuck with a shitty government?
Pretty lousy solution, IMO. The whole point here is to avoid a big loss of civilian live. If we didn't care how many of them die (and MANY of them will die in the attempt) then we'd just bomb the place to shit.
Not to mention that any politician that so much as suggests another war at this point is never going to get elected to anything for the remainder of his or her life.
Slashdot Mirror
They pay attention to him so much because he's loud, and a lot of people, especially the extreme right, listen to him. If he didn't garner so much attention from people who are actually conservative, or possibly even dominate as much of national radio as he does, then it probably wouldn't be an issue, but he does on both counts, so he gets attention. ... Well, that, and he's easy to mock.
Eh, the usefulness of the government depends entirely on how you use it.
I'm sure if you manage to make enough noise, at least at the local level, you can get everything done that you need to get done.
Remember, as nice as bribes are, few politicians would dare face the teeth of a rabid, angry mob of voters just waiting to kick them out of office.
Power of democracy and all that.
because caps are totally cool - that's why we LOVE Time Warner.
Wait, what?
Just a quick question - Do you read what you type after you type it?
What you wrote just there was basically the epitome of a paranoid conspiracy rant, addressing not only the evils of big media, but also the evils of education, vitamins, and medicine.
It's nice you have an opinion, but, although the media does have a lot of sway over voters - to the point where it is a bit concerning - it's hardly the main reason that government is so fucked up. A better place to look, if anywhere, would be the two party system, corporate lobbying, the apathetic masses, and the lack of a reliable way for congressmen to judge public opinion, except through the filter of interest groups.
As a side note, animals get tumors all the time, they just aren't always visible (i.e. how many cancer patients do you see with visible evidence of tumors?). Not every tumor is one of the fancy stone-sized lumps bulging out of the head, or w/e you expected.
Then you have the problem where kids are told to go research something for an assignment, and the sources they found outside of school no longer work once they get to the computer lab much more often than even with vanilla blockers in place.
There really isn't any good solution that will work for all parties involved for this problem. If you allow access to more content, you're pissing off parents, and if you restrict access, you're making it more difficult for student's to make use of the Internet.
Either way, though, the entire conversation is moot in the end. It's not hard to circumvent most filters, especially in the case where the school lets kids use laptops for school work (which is only in the children's best interest). It's nice that the school cares about preventing students from getting off task, but any dedicated student will find their way around it, and share that solution with anyone else who wants to deviate from the approved list of websites.
isn't that what's already happening?
How is that a troll?
Damn mods need to learn that troll != disagrees with you.
If anything it should be modded overrated, which would still be wrong because it's currently modded to 1.
Not that he deserves +3 interesting either.
It's not that hard to figure out why somebody would boycott apple - itunes is filled with bloat, macs and ipods are too expensive and difficult to mod, and apple has the tendency to make their products not play nice with other products or formats.
You know, you can say that you don't mind if newer iterations don't innovate, but, really, if a series doesn't innovate, what does it hear from reviewers?
"Stale," "uninspired," "same old same old," and so on.
Really, the developer gets shafted either way, so they might as well try the route that sometimes gives them great reviews.
The symptom will only be cured once the disease is fixed.
The argument is that the free exposure to people who have nothing to lose besides time for listening to your music will help replace the lost sales.
People are more willing to buy things they know are good, due either to a friend's recommendation, or a free trial via bittorrent.
To be honest, I can't help but see how it doesn't make sense. This is why the radio, and other legal forms of free media exist - to help spread the word about artists and their songs to people who wouldn't otherwise buy them.
if anything, this'll become a big joke on *chan and the other sites. I'm sure that, if anyone even notices, the only reaction will be laughter and mocking, as is generally the case on the internet.
well I, for one, welcome our new anonymous overlords, as does Virginia, apparently.
Just because one person might not be able to fully appreciate the advantages of broadband does not mean that another person cannot. The advantages of a faster internet are blurry, and become difficult to discern once you stay in one speed range for too long.
For instance, although almost anyone can probably adjust to a 56k connection, how many people with that connection speed will surf in the same way as I, or, really, most other people with a faster internet connection surfs? For instance, I probably would stay away from downloads, especially large ones, and any sort of non-text instant communications, as opposed to reality, where I've replaced TV with my computer, and I can feel disconnected if I don't have a picture to accompany the text on screen.
This isn't even considering the difficulties of switching between the internet and the phone operating on the same lines.
The advantage may not be immediately visible, but, although most people probably won't recognize it immediately, everyone will likely benefit from a faster Internet connection in the long term.
Sorry, browser got fucked up while replying. Responding to the post below:
people need to stop worrying about whether or not something is or is not "socialist"
I live in a small rural cul de sac. The road is about 40cm lower than my garage, so my driveway is runs downhill a ways before reaching the street. Most of the homes around here have the same sort of thing.
In the winter time, when it gets very icy, I've seen many of neighbors lose control of their cars and run off into the grass or in the worst case hit a tree near the sidewalk. In every single case, the drivers felt like they could successfully guide their vehicle down the ramp, but it always ends up the same. The first few feet seem okay, but soon afterward gravity kicks in and the tires lose their grip.
That we should disregard labels and accept some socialist ideas is exactly what I would expect a communist or a wet-behind-the-ears college kid to say. It reminds of my driveway in the winter. It's like an icy ramp. Once you start out on the path, there's no turning back until you lose all control and crash into your neighbor's fence and tear up his tulip bed.
So what you're saying, to put it in a nice, tidy little box, is that it's a slippery slope?
That's pretty much the first logical fallacy we learned in English class. You can't make the jump from government mandated internet connections to a sudden decision that, hey, maybe Soviet Russia did have it right.
It's one thing to think critically of something, and it's another entirely to be openly critical of what would be a genuinely beneficial policy for the people because of plainly faulty logic.
It is to me. I've never really noticed any sign of caffeine withdrawal, and I regularly switch between a high-caffeine diet and next to no caffeine.
I suppose it could just be me, though.
or we could just.... not attack them?
It's nice to see that you're eager to fix the issue, but in this case, unless there's a threat to us being seriously attacked, we should probably just leave well enough alone.
Don't poke the bear and all that.
I wouldn't say that. Instead, I'd blame ignorance and scare tactics. I can see my parents, or many others I know, overlooking legal advice when threatened with a threat of this magnitude. The fault is in system, not with the parents.
And we cry about all of our freedoms being taken away; be glad we know the concept of freedom itself.
So because they're horrifically oppressed, our relatively small level of oppression is acceptable?
The situation in North Korea is horrible, but we still need to push for freedom wherever possible.
So they should die because they're stuck with a shitty government?
Pretty lousy solution, IMO. The whole point here is to avoid a big loss of civilian live. If we didn't care how many of them die (and MANY of them will die in the attempt) then we'd just bomb the place to shit.
Even if it is hypocritical, would you ever REALLY want North Korea to have nukes?
We can deal with our side of the issue some other day. For now, lets ensure that there is a some other day.
By the way, it only counts if he's mumbling to himself about the government, twitching, coming down off a drug high, or a registered sex offender.
Not to mention that any politician that so much as suggests another war at this point is never going to get elected to anything for the remainder of his or her life.
Oh no, I for one trust North Korea to tell the truth and do what they sa-
Then again, though, you're getting chrome for free. At the very least, the worst you can be gyped out of is.... an otherwise useful browser