1-way cable? Forgivable. Dumb questions about routing? Everyone has to learn at least once. Forgivable.
Using a linksys router? Retarded.
Seriously, short of buying a catalyst 5000, nothing beats a linux (or BSD, I suppose) box. Got that old weird vintage computer with only an arcnet nic? A linux router/firewall will put that on the net too. 1 way cable modem? Linux supports modems and ethernet. Want to do something fancy? Linux can do almost all of it. Firewall rules need to be a bit more complex (which yours will be) ? It can do that too.
A linksys costs money better spent buying some 10/100 nics, a switch, junk food, hookers... nearly anything, you name it. It can't do a single thing I've listed above. Some things are beyond your control (being stuck in the boondocks), but others are flat-out, no excuses possible, mistakes. Correct them quickly, and then return for some useful answers...
MrHat, I've missed you. I had started to think I was unworthy of your limericks.
Tell me the truth though, is it, or is it not incredibly sad, that nearly every topic/conversation on this site can be reduced to a 5 line poem? It tells the lie of just how shallow most of this is...
Why? Because I didn't bother to register until recently? Maybe you'd like me to show you a few AC's from December '97 that look suspiciously like my writing style...
Besides, I can show you usenet posts of mine going back to at least '88. Not exactly ancient, but just a bit older than User #1 here.
Not to belittle Google, which is the best damn search engine ever, but it's not the answer to the non-problem you're trying to invent.
Your opinion itself speaks volumes about what you know and understand. You're the clueless suit touring the factory, wondering why the steam pipes aren't chromed.
No one has ever charged me for typing in "ibm.com". My use of DNS is either free, or depending on how you look at it, the cost is rolled into my ISP subscription. They're not going to give me a refund if somehow stooges like you gut DNS.
DNS doesn't solve your "URL's are ugly" problem, because 1) it isn't DNS's problem to solve, 2) it is largely the result of either bad web design or bad ISP policy and 3) only idiots are complaining about this.
The expense of the domain name squabbling solutions I outlined, is either already being paid for (we have a system to settle trademark disputes), or could be done realtively inexpensively with what amount to a few shell scripts (do the parked domains all bounce to a single site). All that would have to happen is for ICANN to pull its collective ass, and make some sensible policy. Simple as that.
Oh, and one last thing. How do you expect google to index websites, if there is no DNS? Are we all supposed to go back to using IP's? Do we embed those in the hyperlinks instead of domain names?
No, this is my only slashdot account, and I rarely post AC. I split it pretty much equally between borderline trolling (done right, it's all borderline, isn't it?) and serious commentary. You'd be afraid if you knew which was which.
As a generic user? I'm not really sure. The uses are there, waiting, for decent wireless net access that is cheap and universal. Their small enough, that you can easily use them standing up, with a single hand (unlike a laptop, that has to be pulled from the carrying case, and set down). If only it had the net access, checking stocks, looking for a place to eat, etc. all become possible. Maybe even keeping an accurate checkbook with debit cards (the cash register beams IR indicating the amount withdrawn?).
More intriguing for me, are the non-generic uses (they also require wireless networking, but not necessarily internet access). A waitress taking orders on an iPaq instead of a pad of paper. No more wasting paper pulp, or having unreadable orders. The data mining a restaurant could do, knowing exactly what and when something was ordered. The inventory accuracy that might allow.
Or maybe lots of things that you use a clipboard and paperwork for. Too many to name. Brain has stopped working, if this were a normal hour I could think of at least 2 dozen such ideas... I have before. Oh well...
If you bothered to log in, why not post as such, so they could see this wasn't just a lame attempt by me to make it look like I had some support? Besides, I garbled half my arguments... been up 26 hours straight at this point, not exactly articulate. Maybe not even coherent.
Actually, it is insulting wannabe-elitist morons like you that are ruining Slashdot
Christ, I must be tired to not have caught that the first time round.
Actually, it's strange that you say that I'm ruining it for you, rather than the other way around. Let me explain. The internet is a big shit hole, but it didn't use to be that way. Then people like you arrived, with much bleeting and moo'ing, shepherded here by marketdroids and buzzwordologists. And things keep getting worse. Why? Because you came here, never bothering to learn the rules, and then wondering, bitching about, and crying why things don't work. If you want "content" served up to you with 0.0 effort, go watch TV. They waste untold millions figuring out what lazy idiots like to watch, and all for free! No browsers or anything, just a remote control.
If there is a demand for a service which locates the authorative websites of corporations, then capitalism will provide. This is a lame argument specific to the way Google happens to work.
If there is a demand for something that we already have at this time, for free and with no effort? In other words, you would like it if I paid for something I already get now for free... well, if you can't find a good business model, why not create an artificial one?
What about the cyber-sqatting, cost, and creation of private monopolies? DNS is an ugly ugly solution to the problem of finding IP addresses.
Cyber-squatting is simple. Outlaw domain parking, domain transfers, false advertising (which is what registering www.books.com and pointing it at a porn site is), and enforce trademarks. If you want a domain, then use it. Use it for something other than pointing yet another name at your lame web site. Only allow registrations and de-registrations... if someone wants to try and sell the domain and someone else wants to pay money for it fine. But they don't get it, it just goes back into the unregistered pool. And if someone has a valid trademark (microsoft is valid, computers.com isn't) by all means give it back to the trademark holder. Duh.
DNS is pretty handy for finding IP's, actually. It just isn't as good at making websurfing as effortless as you'd prefer. Or for keeping people from being assholes and polluting the namespace, I should add.
Market forces will create a demand for comprehensive search-engines which aren't biased, in fact, they already have.
Dumbass. On a fresh install of the browser of your choice (or lack thereof), you can't get everywhere you want to go only by clicking links. If the url field is hidden or disabled, which you advocate, you'll be reduced to clicking a toolbar button or a pre-loaded bookmark. I'm sure one such will be a searh engine... but with M$ can you count on its integrity?
What the hell are you ranting about? This has nothing todo with whether your ISP supports cgi.
So sorry, I thought you might have the ability to understand non-monosyllabic words. Let me try again...
I-S-P bad. No like us have nice web names. Must use bad homepage **DAMN*... It can't be done.
I'm tired, so I'll try to make this clearer. If users are only ever allowed to use crappy homepage webspace, of course half the URL's on the net will be long and ugly. I also failed to mention that many commercial sites have bad web design... this accounts for the other half being ugly.
And if I got off on a rant, so what? I see someone like you talk out of your ass, I become a little bit upset. Well, guess what? If you want to add another protocol, pick a port number and get to work. I won't stop you. But stop ranting yourself about how the current ones are ugly, when you have no clue why they are even like they are.
DNS isn't broken, and it isn't ugly. As a protocol, it is highly distributable, robust, and solves the IP-human readable name problem as well as anything that has ever been published. It is the foundation of many protocols and services available on the internet, only one of which is the web. We don't need a seperate, incompatible system for the web, and you've offered nothing that would suffice for anything but that, and even then only poorly.
Please, I know you're right, but you're also depressing me even more than I am.
Currently, I'm sitting here at work, with nothing to do (helpdesk on a holiday, very few workers in the plants) and this is my absolute last night. I'm in the unemployment line (again) tomorrow morning. And I sure as hell don't have the $1000+ it would cost me to become an MCSE. Besides, I believe the lobotomy is still mandatory.
Also, please don't call me a h4x0r or even a hacker. At one time, in another decade that word might have described me, but it no longer does so. Even now, I'm fiddling with a schematic for a PCI card I'm going to build. PLX9052 pci chipset ($17) a serial eeprom, zilog z8530($2) and some glue. Finally ditching the old server at home, and lack of ISA slots isn't going to stop me from having a localtalk nic. May even work on an econet interface, if I ever have spending money again.
Oh, and we should instead rely on a search engine scheme, where a company may never get the users that are searching for it, because of a million idiots (Sadly, they turn out to be non-idiots more often than idiots. My apologies) ranting about XYZ Inc. ?
The ironic thing is, I'm rabidly anti-corporate. But if I need to see something about IBM, it's a sure bet starting at ibm.com puts me within 3 clicks of where I want to be. Google, or any other search engine technology that I've ever heard of, just isn't good for this sort of thing.
You want to know what the real problem is?
First off, it's laziness on the part of morons like yourself, that lust after AOL keywords and are pissed that the internet doesn't bend itself to fit your warped little design philosophies.
Secondly, not everything is the web. Not even close. DNS and domain names aren't about identifying your lousy porn site, they are about identifying a particular host. Done well though (which isn't the case), it's pretty decent at getting you within a few clicks of where you want to be.
Thirdly, how the fuck do you expect to ever type in the first URL, google.com or whatnot, if it's hidden from you on your brand new Dell? I can see the horror that would be inevitable in such a scheme. microsoft-search.com as a nice little button on the toolbar, that never ever brings up a link to click on for google or yahoo, no matter how you phrase the keywords.
Finally, the problem is the fact that the vast majority of ISP's view their customers as users of content that they provide, rather than participants in the first, and largest, p2p network ever devised. At best, you'll recieve a lousy homepage with no ftp, cgibin, or any other goodies, and a lousy url like "http://www.smalltown-isp.net/users/~dumbfart/". Of course it sucks. Hell, they even screwed up the.US namespace with a similar scheme (what was the highest level you could get, 3rd level subdomain?). Since anything a customer can get is necessarily a lousy url that is cryptic and says little about the site, what do you expect? They often have draconian ToS's that forbid running servers, so that's not a fix, and even if you press on after that, they only offer dynamic IP's, so you still can't get a decent domain. They refuse to offer something along the lines of mysite.smalltown-isp.net either. Which further forces a person onto third-party webhosts, making it necessary to put up banners just to pay expenses. See how bad ISP policy just makes all the shit roll downhill, until you have an avalanche of it?
Sen. Hollings wants to know why there isn't enough compelling content to drive demand for broadband? Well, it's because AT&T Broadband goes out of their way to make sure I can't put any decent content up, unless I'm willing to have it polluted by their own self-serving ads, chop it down til it fits in 10megs, and refuse to do anything other than the simple static html/javascript pages that is all that they'll allow.
You have to decide for yourself if it counts... but my opinion is less than flattering.
Biology teaches us that certain animals may develop more than one strategy for any given purpose. I can't remember an exact example, but I think the latest I've read about was a certain species of iguana, and how they go about mating. As it were, there were 3 different strategies (Note: Is it coincidental the number was 3, as in scissors rock paper?), such as female impersonation, harem-building, and "ambush". Researchers studied these things for 3 years (I'm still debating if this was money well spent), and no single strategy emerged as the winner. Harem building would be the best strategy for awhile, until one of the other 2 strategies started working. But the thing that stood out, was this:
The most successful strategy just happened to be the least popular at the time.
This principle also hints at other things, for instance the stock market. Often, the most popular strategies are less successful than someone bucking the trend, and bucking it early (those who buck it late, are the band wagon jumpers who make it the most popular, less successful strategy).
I believe this "system" rears its ugly head in politics too, at least to some minor extent. And I can't rule it out here. So, the real question is, did this behavior, this instinct, influence Feingold at all?
I mean, let's take a look at the facts. Even if he wanted this bill to pass, he had to have know it would, and his vote didn't matter. He was free to vote however might benefit or amuse him, without disrupting it.
If voting against was bad, he could easily say something along the lines "I'd vote against in any circumstance like this, just because it's good principle that nothing be unaminous in such grave controversial circumstances... every position deserves a defending attourney as it were, and fate chose me for the role." Who could argue with that?
And if he doesn't have to say that, well then, he picks up votes from people like you, while still maintaining most, if not all of the rest of his constituency. Hell, maybe not on this particular issue, but he could even have campaign commercials lauding such a dissenting vote "Everyone else voted for this bill, only one man had the courage to stand up against it, and say NO." And as a strategy, it is very likely to not be harmful, as long as its not used frequently.
I can't prove any of this, but at best, Feingold deserves a "maybe" here. Hopefully someone better informed than I will reply.
Name a single male, non-gay congressman you could trust in a locked room, alone with your 15 yr old daughter, for more than 5 minutes.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that never looked the other way when they noticed they were getting quesionable capaign donations, even once.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that publically ridiculed another major member of their own political party and didn't back down until that member resigned or publically apologized/changed their stance. (Note: Democrats abandoning Clinton don't necessarily count, unless you can prove that they recently had some honest words to say about him. The words "rats on a sinking ship" come to mind, too many are willing to ride the waves on the flotsam from the wreck.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that willingly and knowingly ruined their chances at re-election just to do the right thing. (Note: Prepare to back this up, I won't consider those that voted for term limits, for instance, knowing that the bill wouldn't pass anyway.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that has pubically complained about specific spending that they called "pork" when it was their own state/district that stood to gain from the bill.
Answer a single one of these questions, and maybe I'll have to consider that there are a few "good, honest people" in congress. If it makes you feel any better, you were half right, you can find plenty money grubbing lowlives in the Capitol building.
Please, feel free to add other qualifying questions to my little litmus test, maybe he'll be able to answer at least one.
Two of my friends are black. It would be insulting to be called a fascist by anyone but you, however, you're just too stupid for me to worry about it.
Comparing 9/11 to the petty crimes that might happen in Harlem is sick. I don't have to lay awake at night wondering if some pimp from South Central LA is trying to build nuclear weapons.
And *AGAIN* you refuse to name even one of these causes. Since you are too stupid to name one of them, allow me to do so for you.
In 1200 AD such and such a muslim was there. In 1350 AD such and such a christian was here. Then in 1360 2 muslims were here, and a christian there. Etc.
Sure, we could eliminate the causes, just build me a time machine.
Your bold refusal to see reality just makes things worse. Most of these disgustingly twisted terrorists will never even see a hangman's noose... they choose to die in the attack. And if only 20 terrorists die for every 3000 they murder, they consider it a victory. In a way, I suppose it is... because at that rate, everyone in the US would be dead before every terrorist was.
So, I'm not treating everyone as a criminal. I don't have the power to. I'm just not being blinded by all the bullshit like you.
Uh, yeh. Security is simple, don't network them, and lock them in a fortress. Stability? Whatever. That you choose candyass XP instead of 2k says alot, imo. I mean what can you say? Have fun in your dreamworld. Come see me, when you want to see something real.
A better example than a luxury car would be a diamond. We (or at least our girlfriends) all want diamonds for $20 apiece, but it isn't going to happen.
Of course, there are more diamonds on this planet than necessary to lower the price to $20 per carat, but it will never happen... too much money to be made if they all cost $1500.
Oh, and those 1% are the most enthusiastic. The web would die if only the 99% AOL crowd was on it. But then, they'd just sit around crying about how the net up and died, for no explainable reason, and "oh well" about it like morons.
Slashdot Mirror
1-way cable? Forgivable.
Dumb questions about routing? Everyone has to learn at least once. Forgivable.
Using a linksys router? Retarded.
Seriously, short of buying a catalyst 5000, nothing beats a linux (or BSD, I suppose) box. Got that old weird vintage computer with only an arcnet nic? A linux router/firewall will put that on the net too. 1 way cable modem? Linux supports modems and ethernet. Want to do something fancy? Linux can do almost all of it. Firewall rules need to be a bit more complex (which yours will be) ? It can do that too.
A linksys costs money better spent buying some 10/100 nics, a switch, junk food, hookers... nearly anything, you name it. It can't do a single thing I've listed above. Some things are beyond your control (being stuck in the boondocks), but others are flat-out, no excuses possible, mistakes. Correct them quickly, and then return for some useful answers...
Never ceases to amaze me.
DVD is not VHS tape. You can have both versions, maybe even 3 or 4, all on the same disc... ah, the wonders of random access.
MrHat, I've missed you. I had started to think I was unworthy of your limericks.
Tell me the truth though, is it, or is it not incredibly sad, that nearly every topic/conversation on this site can be reduced to a 5 line poem? It tells the lie of just how shallow most of this is...
Why? Because I didn't bother to register until recently? Maybe you'd like me to show you a few AC's from December '97 that look suspiciously like my writing style...
Besides, I can show you usenet posts of mine going back to at least '88. Not exactly ancient, but just a bit older than User #1 here.
Not to belittle Google, which is the best damn search engine ever, but it's not the answer to the non-problem you're trying to invent.
Your opinion itself speaks volumes about what you know and understand. You're the clueless suit touring the factory, wondering why the steam pipes aren't chromed.
No one has ever charged me for typing in "ibm.com". My use of DNS is either free, or depending on how you look at it, the cost is rolled into my ISP subscription. They're not going to give me a refund if somehow stooges like you gut DNS.
DNS doesn't solve your "URL's are ugly" problem, because 1) it isn't DNS's problem to solve, 2) it is largely the result of either bad web design or bad ISP policy and 3) only idiots are complaining about this.
The expense of the domain name squabbling solutions I outlined, is either already being paid for (we have a system to settle trademark disputes), or could be done realtively inexpensively with what amount to a few shell scripts (do the parked domains all bounce to a single site). All that would have to happen is for ICANN to pull its collective ass, and make some sensible policy. Simple as that.
Oh, and one last thing. How do you expect google to index websites, if there is no DNS? Are we all supposed to go back to using IP's? Do we embed those in the hyperlinks instead of domain names?
He's also incredibly humble, if you haven't noticed.
Why? Because I said my brain has stopped working?
No, this is my only slashdot account, and I rarely post AC. I split it pretty much equally between borderline trolling (done right, it's all borderline, isn't it?) and serious commentary. You'd be afraid if you knew which was which.
As a generic user? I'm not really sure. The uses are there, waiting, for decent wireless net access that is cheap and universal. Their small enough, that you can easily use them standing up, with a single hand (unlike a laptop, that has to be pulled from the carrying case, and set down). If only it had the net access, checking stocks, looking for a place to eat, etc. all become possible. Maybe even keeping an accurate checkbook with debit cards (the cash register beams IR indicating the amount withdrawn?).
More intriguing for me, are the non-generic uses (they also require wireless networking, but not necessarily internet access). A waitress taking orders on an iPaq instead of a pad of paper. No more wasting paper pulp, or having unreadable orders. The data mining a restaurant could do, knowing exactly what and when something was ordered. The inventory accuracy that might allow.
Or maybe lots of things that you use a clipboard and paperwork for. Too many to name. Brain has stopped working, if this were a normal hour I could think of at least 2 dozen such ideas... I have before. Oh well...
If you bothered to log in, why not post as such, so they could see this wasn't just a lame attempt by me to make it look like I had some support? Besides, I garbled half my arguments... been up 26 hours straight at this point, not exactly articulate. Maybe not even coherent.
Actually, it is insulting wannabe-elitist morons like you that are ruining Slashdot
Christ, I must be tired to not have caught that the first time round.
Actually, it's strange that you say that I'm ruining it for you, rather than the other way around. Let me explain. The internet is a big shit hole, but it didn't use to be that way. Then people like you arrived, with much bleeting and moo'ing, shepherded here by marketdroids and buzzwordologists. And things keep getting worse. Why? Because you came here, never bothering to learn the rules, and then wondering, bitching about, and crying why things don't work. If you want "content" served up to you with 0.0 effort, go watch TV. They waste untold millions figuring out what lazy idiots like to watch, and all for free! No browsers or anything, just a remote control.
Generic example. Idiot.
If there is a demand for a service which locates the authorative websites of corporations, then capitalism will provide. This is a lame argument specific to the way Google happens to work.
... It can't be done.
If there is a demand for something that we already have at this time, for free and with no effort? In other words, you would like it if I paid for something I already get now for free... well, if you can't find a good business model, why not create an artificial one?
What about the cyber-sqatting, cost, and creation of private monopolies? DNS is an ugly ugly solution to the problem of finding IP addresses.
Cyber-squatting is simple. Outlaw domain parking, domain transfers, false advertising (which is what registering www.books.com and pointing it at a porn site is), and enforce trademarks. If you want a domain, then use it. Use it for something other than pointing yet another name at your lame web site. Only allow registrations and de-registrations... if someone wants to try and sell the domain and someone else wants to pay money for it fine. But they don't get it, it just goes back into the unregistered pool. And if someone has a valid trademark (microsoft is valid, computers.com isn't) by all means give it back to the trademark holder. Duh. DNS is pretty handy for finding IP's, actually. It just isn't as good at making websurfing as effortless as you'd prefer. Or for keeping people from being assholes and polluting the namespace, I should add.
Market forces will create a demand for comprehensive search-engines which aren't biased, in fact, they already have.
Dumbass. On a fresh install of the browser of your choice (or lack thereof), you can't get everywhere you want to go only by clicking links. If the url field is hidden or disabled, which you advocate, you'll be reduced to clicking a toolbar button or a pre-loaded bookmark. I'm sure one such will be a searh engine... but with M$ can you count on its integrity?
What the hell are you ranting about? This has nothing todo with whether your ISP supports cgi.
So sorry, I thought you might have the ability to understand non-monosyllabic words. Let me try again...
I-S-P bad. No like us have nice web names. Must use bad homepage **DAMN*
I'm tired, so I'll try to make this clearer. If users are only ever allowed to use crappy homepage webspace, of course half the URL's on the net will be long and ugly. I also failed to mention that many commercial sites have bad web design... this accounts for the other half being ugly.
And if I got off on a rant, so what? I see someone like you talk out of your ass, I become a little bit upset. Well, guess what? If you want to add another protocol, pick a port number and get to work. I won't stop you. But stop ranting yourself about how the current ones are ugly, when you have no clue why they are even like they are.
DNS isn't broken, and it isn't ugly. As a protocol, it is highly distributable, robust, and solves the IP-human readable name problem as well as anything that has ever been published. It is the foundation of many protocols and services available on the internet, only one of which is the web. We don't need a seperate, incompatible system for the web, and you've offered nothing that would suffice for anything but that, and even then only poorly.
Please, I know you're right, but you're also depressing me even more than I am.
Currently, I'm sitting here at work, with nothing to do (helpdesk on a holiday, very few workers in the plants) and this is my absolute last night. I'm in the unemployment line (again) tomorrow morning. And I sure as hell don't have the $1000+ it would cost me to become an MCSE. Besides, I believe the lobotomy is still mandatory.
Also, please don't call me a h4x0r or even a hacker. At one time, in another decade that word might have described me, but it no longer does so. Even now, I'm fiddling with a schematic for a PCI card I'm going to build. PLX9052 pci chipset ($17) a serial eeprom, zilog z8530($2) and some glue. Finally ditching the old server at home, and lack of ISA slots isn't going to stop me from having a localtalk nic. May even work on an econet interface, if I ever have spending money again.
No. Thieves are alot less likely to steal from you than M$, and if they do, it will still be for less.
Oh, and we should instead rely on a search engine scheme, where a company may never get the users that are searching for it, because of a million idiots (Sadly, they turn out to be non-idiots more often than idiots. My apologies) ranting about XYZ Inc. ?
.US namespace with a similar scheme (what was the highest level you could get, 3rd level subdomain?). Since anything a customer can get is necessarily a lousy url that is cryptic and says little about the site, what do you expect? They often have draconian ToS's that forbid running servers, so that's not a fix, and even if you press on after that, they only offer dynamic IP's, so you still can't get a decent domain. They refuse to offer something along the lines of mysite.smalltown-isp.net either. Which further forces a person onto third-party webhosts, making it necessary to put up banners just to pay expenses. See how bad ISP policy just makes all the shit roll downhill, until you have an avalanche of it?
The ironic thing is, I'm rabidly anti-corporate. But if I need to see something about IBM, it's a sure bet starting at ibm.com puts me within 3 clicks of where I want to be. Google, or any other search engine technology that I've ever heard of, just isn't good for this sort of thing.
You want to know what the real problem is?
First off, it's laziness on the part of morons like yourself, that lust after AOL keywords and are pissed that the internet doesn't bend itself to fit your warped little design philosophies.
Secondly, not everything is the web. Not even close. DNS and domain names aren't about identifying your lousy porn site, they are about identifying a particular host. Done well though (which isn't the case), it's pretty decent at getting you within a few clicks of where you want to be.
Thirdly, how the fuck do you expect to ever type in the first URL, google.com or whatnot, if it's hidden from you on your brand new Dell? I can see the horror that would be inevitable in such a scheme. microsoft-search.com as a nice little button on the toolbar, that never ever brings up a link to click on for google or yahoo, no matter how you phrase the keywords.
Finally, the problem is the fact that the vast majority of ISP's view their customers as users of content that they provide, rather than participants in the first, and largest, p2p network ever devised. At best, you'll recieve a lousy homepage with no ftp, cgibin, or any other goodies, and a lousy url like "http://www.smalltown-isp.net/users/~dumbfart/". Of course it sucks. Hell, they even screwed up the
Sen. Hollings wants to know why there isn't enough compelling content to drive demand for broadband? Well, it's because AT&T Broadband goes out of their way to make sure I can't put any decent content up, unless I'm willing to have it polluted by their own self-serving ads, chop it down til it fits in 10megs, and refuse to do anything other than the simple static html/javascript pages that is all that they'll allow.
I was wondering if someone would mention that.
You have to decide for yourself if it counts... but my opinion is less than flattering.
Biology teaches us that certain animals may develop more than one strategy for any given purpose. I can't remember an exact example, but I think the latest I've read about was a certain species of iguana, and how they go about mating. As it were, there were 3 different strategies (Note: Is it coincidental the number was 3, as in scissors rock paper?), such as female impersonation, harem-building, and "ambush". Researchers studied these things for 3 years (I'm still debating if this was money well spent), and no single strategy emerged as the winner. Harem building would be the best strategy for awhile, until one of the other 2 strategies started working. But the thing that stood out, was this:
The most successful strategy just happened to be the least popular at the time.
This principle also hints at other things, for instance the stock market. Often, the most popular strategies are less successful than someone bucking the trend, and bucking it early (those who buck it late, are the band wagon jumpers who make it the most popular, less successful strategy).
I believe this "system" rears its ugly head in politics too, at least to some minor extent. And I can't rule it out here. So, the real question is, did this behavior, this instinct, influence Feingold at all?
I mean, let's take a look at the facts. Even if he wanted this bill to pass, he had to have know it would, and his vote didn't matter. He was free to vote however might benefit or amuse him, without disrupting it.
If voting against was bad, he could easily say something along the lines "I'd vote against in any circumstance like this, just because it's good principle that nothing be unaminous in such grave controversial circumstances... every position deserves a defending attourney as it were, and fate chose me for the role." Who could argue with that?
And if he doesn't have to say that, well then, he picks up votes from people like you, while still maintaining most, if not all of the rest of his constituency. Hell, maybe not on this particular issue, but he could even have campaign commercials lauding such a dissenting vote "Everyone else voted for this bill, only one man had the courage to stand up against it, and say NO." And as a strategy, it is very likely to not be harmful, as long as its not used frequently.
I can't prove any of this, but at best, Feingold deserves a "maybe" here. Hopefully someone better informed than I will reply.
You realize that I can't email you, because you are too much of a dipshit to post as something other than Anonymous Coward.
Or hell, you weren't even bright enough to post some method to contact you.
Name a single male, non-gay congressman you could trust in a locked room, alone with your 15 yr old daughter, for more than 5 minutes.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that never looked the other way when they noticed they were getting quesionable capaign donations, even once.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that publically ridiculed another major member of their own political party and didn't back down until that member resigned or publically apologized/changed their stance.
(Note: Democrats abandoning Clinton don't necessarily count, unless you can prove that they recently had some honest words to say about him. The words "rats on a sinking ship" come to mind, too many are willing to ride the waves on the flotsam from the wreck.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that willingly and knowingly ruined their chances at re-election just to do the right thing. (Note: Prepare to back this up, I won't consider those that voted for term limits, for instance, knowing that the bill wouldn't pass anyway.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that has pubically complained about specific spending that they called "pork" when it was their own state/district that stood to gain from the bill.
Answer a single one of these questions, and maybe I'll have to consider that there are a few "good, honest people" in congress. If it makes you feel any better, you were half right, you can find plenty money grubbing lowlives in the Capitol building.
Please, feel free to add other qualifying questions to my little litmus test, maybe he'll be able to answer at least one.
You may or may not be bitter. But I'll bitchkick anyone that even suggests that you're delusional.
They *ARE* all crooks.
Tongue'ing congressman is bad, just ask Chandra Levy.
I've already admitted that it would never happen, I believe, in the parent post. Even gave a few reasons. Oh well.
And I get modded -1, Troll. How fitting.
Two of my friends are black. It would be insulting to be called a fascist by anyone but you, however, you're just too stupid for me to worry about it.
Comparing 9/11 to the petty crimes that might happen in Harlem is sick. I don't have to lay awake at night wondering if some pimp from South Central LA is trying to build nuclear weapons.
And *AGAIN* you refuse to name even one of these causes. Since you are too stupid to name one of them, allow me to do so for you.
In 1200 AD such and such a muslim was there.
In 1350 AD such and such a christian was here.
Then in 1360 2 muslims were here, and a christian there. Etc.
Sure, we could eliminate the causes, just build me a time machine.
Your bold refusal to see reality just makes things worse. Most of these disgustingly twisted terrorists will never even see a hangman's noose... they choose to die in the attack. And if only 20 terrorists die for every 3000 they murder, they consider it a victory. In a way, I suppose it is... because at that rate, everyone in the US would be dead before every terrorist was.
So, I'm not treating everyone as a criminal. I don't have the power to. I'm just not being blinded by all the bullshit like you.
That requires that someone have a good idea every once in awhile. With nothing to compare it to, it's simply an idea.
Uh, yeh. Security is simple, don't network them, and lock them in a fortress. Stability? Whatever. That you choose candyass XP instead of 2k says alot, imo. I mean what can you say? Have fun in your dreamworld. Come see me, when you want to see something real.
A better example than a luxury car would be a diamond. We (or at least our girlfriends) all want diamonds for $20 apiece, but it isn't going to happen.
Of course, there are more diamonds on this planet than necessary to lower the price to $20 per carat, but it will never happen... too much money to be made if they all cost $1500.
Oh, and those 1% are the most enthusiastic. The web would die if only the 99% AOL crowd was on it. But then, they'd just sit around crying about how the net up and died, for no explainable reason, and "oh well" about it like morons.