That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.
Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas. Mousavi was heavily favored in cities. A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything. Mousavi was heavily favored among young students. It's too uniform to be plausible. For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan. That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.
In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1% of the total. In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.
CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth. Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video. The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places. The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each. Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated. Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.
You're just discovering this now? Are you saying that you recently had respect for for the same network that through out objective headline news reporting for the likes of Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck?
It seems like Disney, along with the other media giants, have become bean counters instead of creative thinkers. One would think that with all their experience and finances they would be able to come up with an innovated business model. Instead, they come up with uninspired plans that mirror their vapid and insipid media products.
If I were a media company, I would be giving revenue shares to ISPs who signed up individual subscribers to my service. Get my ISP to offer an ESPN / Fox sports / MLB or NFL bundle that gives access to all three sites and offer them a cut of the revenue.
after all, Louisiana has no other major pressing issues that might require some financial attention, such as finding homes for all the people displaced by Katrina. Before they spend the money on protecting children from the evil Internet, maybe they should spend some effort on protecting children from the evil collapsing infrastructure.
Stick the RE ^\d{3}-?\d{2}-?\d{4}$ in a QRegExpValidator in Qt and you have real time validation. Nokia has an example of this in their Qt course materials.
That's not what net neutrality is about. That's QoS or usage tiers. What net neutrality is about is making sure that toll road owners are not charging more for trucks carrying company A's stuff than trucks driving company B's stuff. ISPs want to be able to degrade performance from certain internet services, such as Skype and Hulu, in order to "encourage" you to use their own services.
That is not how I interpret net neutrality. I interpret it as an extension of "common carrier" laws which protect ISPs and Telecomm companies from liability for content passed through their wires or stored at their facilities.
Any shaping of traffic for the purpose of making editorial comment or censoring data is introducing a variable that could lead a carrier towards liability for content.
The question is whether or not QOS is editorial or resource management. If I, as a carrier, change the characteristics of my network to prevent or reduce the effectiveness of content that competes with my business, is that censorship or editorial comment? I believe the answer is yes.
I believe ISPs have the right to charge a fee for resources used. I don't believe they have the right to restrict services under the guise of resource management. Putting a cap on throughput per period of time is a reasonable approach to resource management. Filtering based on protocol or type of data is censorship.
I don't pirate video or audio, but I don't buy them either. The issue here isn't that everyone is becoming a criminal, its that the entertainment products produced by the studios aren't worth the price they want us to pay.
It surprises me that there are people out there who are willing to shell out $12 a head for Pineapple Express.
Lets also not forget the rootkit fiasco unleashed by Sony. Their actions were verging on criminal and from what I can tell about criminal behavior, it still takes one to know one.
This is cool technology for my Tivo, but it also sounds like this technology could scan through the thousands of video feeds collected by municipal surveillance cameras and track my every movement. Not that my life is so interesting to anyone else, but what if it were?
Just announced that dailies will increase to $1.00 and the Sunday paper to $3.00. I think they've already pissed off their readers.
The issue here is more of a financial business model rather than a fight over content. I go to Google because I like the format and I get a variety news from various sources. The funding model is advertising from an increasing market.
I listen to NPR in my car and watch the PBS news at home. The funding model is guilt driven subscriptions from a loyal audience.
I don't read print newspapers as they generate too much waste. The online sites for the Boston Globe, boston.com, and the New York Times suck. The funding model is advertising and subscription from a diminishing readership.
I trust that in the slim chance news agencies manage to win their cases in court, Google will figure a way to continue to deliver me the news.
The RIAA intervention by the DOJ would not usually get my panties in a twist, but I think it is taking us in the wrong direction. It was the greed, arrogance, and unreasonable actions by wall street executives that got us into the current financial mess. The RIAA is no different and in my humble opinion, Obama's support for their arrogance and bullying is sending a clear message that he is duplicitous.
Either you are against this of behaviour or you are for it. You can't be both.
I thought that the promise of digital television was specialized programming for niche communities. From what I can see, all the channels now carry the same crap.
I can't tell the difference between SciFi, Spike, or even Soap TV (not that I watch it or anything.)
From what I can tell, the future of television will be 250 channels of "Law and Order" re-runs.
Slashdot Mirror
Cruel and unusual punishment applies to criminal law and not civil law.
I ask, NVIDIA who?
oops, I meant threw out. Oh well
That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.
Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas. Mousavi was heavily favored in cities. A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything. Mousavi was heavily favored among young students. It's too uniform to be plausible. For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan. That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.
In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1% of the total. In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.
CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth. Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video. The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places. The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each. Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated. Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.
You're just discovering this now? Are you saying that you recently had respect for for the same network that through out objective headline news reporting for the likes of Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck?
It seems like Disney, along with the other media giants, have become bean counters instead of creative thinkers. One would think that with all their experience and finances they would be able to come up with an innovated business model. Instead, they come up with uninspired plans that mirror their vapid and insipid media products.
If I were a media company, I would be giving revenue shares to ISPs who signed up individual subscribers to my service. Get my ISP to offer an ESPN / Fox sports / MLB or NFL bundle that gives access to all three sites and offer them a cut of the revenue.
after all, Louisiana has no other major pressing issues that might require some financial attention, such as finding homes for all the people displaced by Katrina. Before they spend the money on protecting children from the evil Internet, maybe they should spend some effort on protecting children from the evil collapsing infrastructure.
Stick the RE ^\d{3}-?\d{2}-?\d{4}$ in a QRegExpValidator in Qt and you have real time validation. Nokia has an example of this in their Qt course materials.
That's not what net neutrality is about. That's QoS or usage tiers. What net neutrality is about is making sure that toll road owners are not charging more for trucks carrying company A's stuff than trucks driving company B's stuff. ISPs want to be able to degrade performance from certain internet services, such as Skype and Hulu, in order to "encourage" you to use their own services.
That is not how I interpret net neutrality. I interpret it as an extension of "common carrier" laws which protect ISPs and Telecomm companies from liability for content passed through their wires or stored at their facilities.
Any shaping of traffic for the purpose of making editorial comment or censoring data is introducing a variable that could lead a carrier towards liability for content.
The question is whether or not QOS is editorial or resource management. If I, as a carrier, change the characteristics of my network to prevent or reduce the effectiveness of content that competes with my business, is that censorship or editorial comment? I believe the answer is yes.
I believe ISPs have the right to charge a fee for resources used. I don't believe they have the right to restrict services under the guise of resource management. Putting a cap on throughput per period of time is a reasonable approach to resource management. Filtering based on protocol or type of data is censorship.
I don't pirate video or audio, but I don't buy them either. The issue here isn't that everyone is becoming a criminal, its that the entertainment products produced by the studios aren't worth the price they want us to pay.
It surprises me that there are people out there who are willing to shell out $12 a head for Pineapple Express.
Lets also not forget the rootkit fiasco unleashed by Sony. Their actions were verging on criminal and from what I can tell about criminal behavior, it still takes one to know one.
This is cool technology for my Tivo, but it also sounds like this technology could scan through the thousands of video feeds collected by municipal surveillance cameras and track my every movement. Not that my life is so interesting to anyone else, but what if it were?
Just announced that dailies will increase to $1.00 and the Sunday paper to $3.00. I think they've already pissed off their readers.
The issue here is more of a financial business model rather than a fight over content. I go to Google because I like the format and I get a variety news from various sources. The funding model is advertising from an increasing market.
I listen to NPR in my car and watch the PBS news at home. The funding model is guilt driven subscriptions from a loyal audience.
I don't read print newspapers as they generate too much waste. The online sites for the Boston Globe, boston.com, and the New York Times suck. The funding model is advertising and subscription from a diminishing readership.
I trust that in the slim chance news agencies manage to win their cases in court, Google will figure a way to continue to deliver me the news.
That windows won this battle because linux doesn't have enough critics.
Before Colbert, I forgot NASA still existed.
I heard that they are also planning to revamp the prison system to concentrate on poking out eyes and pulling teeth.
The RIAA intervention by the DOJ would not usually get my panties in a twist, but I think it is taking us in the wrong direction. It was the greed, arrogance, and unreasonable actions by wall street executives that got us into the current financial mess. The RIAA is no different and in my humble opinion, Obama's support for their arrogance and bullying is sending a clear message that he is duplicitous.
Either you are against this of behaviour or you are for it. You can't be both.
I hope it comes with better customer service than Dell'snormal 1-800-stick-pins-in-my-eyeballs-and-make-me-cry.
Apple seems to understand the relationship between premium products and good customer support.
I thought that the promise of digital television was specialized programming for niche communities. From what I can see, all the channels now carry the same crap.
I can't tell the difference between SciFi, Spike, or even Soap TV (not that I watch it or anything.)
From what I can tell, the future of television will be 250 channels of "Law and Order" re-runs.