Plus, ALL the damned high school kids seem to flock to it. Think Geocities eight or nine years ago, when there were so many awful Geocities sites by kids with black backgrounds, an awful midi, and bright pink or something text about just stupid, mundane teenager things. (omg teh dramaz)
Now Myspace is a haven for that. It even lets them put in -- gasp -- a freaking video embedded in the page (which is why, under no circumstances, do I visit myspace). They show their -- omg -- creativity and how DIFFERENT they are (by being exactly alike). Plus, the social networking, and the incentive to get more people on it -- of course it gets hits. It's a teenager magnet.
PC's which are cheaper than said console, do alot more than said console, and even cost less than said console.
You obviously don't play current games on a PC. It's ridiculously expensive. But once you've bought a console, you have a good five or six years (PS2 came out in 2000, PSX in 1995) before the next gen. And short of buying an internet adapter (which is cheaper than a high-end video card), you don't really have to make a lot of upgrades. Games for the PS2 made today, work on the PS2 made in 2000.
And, stupidly expensive consoles? I bought a PS2 for under two hundred bucks, a Gamecube for 150 and it had a game with it, and I'm pretty sure the SNES was around that much when I got it.
Handhelds which are instantly outdated...
Okay, this line I saved for last, because it's totally bullshit. The GBA came out in 2001. It's still supported. The only change made was to add a backlight (and make a tiny-ass Gameboy Micro, but you don't have to have a micro to play new games). And it plays games from the original Gameboy. So you can play games from 1989 with it. I wouldn't call three major revisions to the family (Spinach colored, Game Boy Color, and then Game Boy Advance) in seventeen years "instantly outdated."
And I've yet to hear plans for a PSP2, or DS2. How do you define outdated? "They still make software for it and haven't released new systems"?
I mean, I can think of a few reasons why kids wouldn't play games, but instantly outdated handhelds? That's like complaining that your 2005 model car is outdated because they released a 2006 with a different color interior and smaller mirrors.
I don't yet understand how doing what this article suggests does anything but drive Apple out of business.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about. If they sell OS X for PCs, how does that drive them out of business? Okay, say OS X PC doesn't sell. No big loss. They can stop. Say OS X does sell, and Apple hardware sales dwindle a bit. They've managed to stay alive with a small, small percent of the market. OS X sells, they get money. Even if hardware sales dwindle.
OS X doesn't sell, they lose very little.
And even if OS X sales are dismal AND Mac sales go down: iPod. Apple is the undeniable king of the mountain with the iPod. And they still make money off of things like Final Cut (which is bloody expensive).
Releasing OS X for generic PCs would help Apple far more than it would hurt; "Oooh, I like this. Maybe I should buy a Mac next time..."
(Disclaimer: I have never owned a Macintosh of any sort, and I will never buy an iPod at the current prices. I don't even really have any interest in OS X on PC. I'm just an economics nerd.)
I have to agree, and point out that the same thing is happening to nursing. There's this huge demand for new nurses (ten million new nurses by 2010 is the current pushed figure), and so everyone and their cat at my college wants a nursing degree. They think, oh, I can do that. And some of them are just downright stupid and have no business being in a job with more responsibility than fries and a shake. They figure if nurses are needed, nurses will get paid more and have job security.
Fortunately enough, nursing programs aren't easy, and most of these people won't make through two semesters. But yes, people tend to go for what will make them money, even if they hate it. Comp Sci isn't seen as a feild that will make big bucks anymore. That is enough for most people. "No money? Me no major in it!"
Non-geeks in the US are pretty damn fat, too. I can't go anywhere without seeing a bunch of tubby women with tubby children. And most of them probably can't even program their VCR. This is a silly article; there are a lot of healthy geeks. There are a lot of unhealthy geeks. Obesity is a huge problem in the United states. There are also little dweeby twerpy guys who are completely lost when sitting at a computer and have an inhaler.
This article is based on the flawed assumption that somehow geeks are more likely to be unhealthy than other people. I should write an article about how we're less likely to get skin cancer because we don't bake until we're orange every year.
Insomnia and altered sleep patterns is one of the most common complaints to my office.
Insomnia and altered sleep patterns are a common complaint, period. That's why Ambien is able to sell their sleep medicine for such a ridiculous price.
Back pain is a frequent complaint in my office as well.
There are still going to be public schools, moron. But it's going to be a while before people who got free houses get new free houses on everyone else's dime. Especially since most of them don't want to work. Businesses in NO are begging for employees right now. Anyone of any color could get a great start if they wanted to actually fucking work.
There are just race baiting whiners like you and Cynthia "I get to punch cops 'cos I'm black" McKinney, and all the people who expect everything to be handed to them. Sorry if people aren't willing to just build a whole city for lazy people who want to stay in nice hotels (on the tax payers dollar) until everything is done for them.
I concede defeat; I see your points. I just fear the incredible stupidity of the censors and the like. They do have a lot of power (and despite what slashbots say, it isn't just because Bush is in office). The last thing we need is a Jack Thompson of domain names. I still personally don't support a.xxx TLD.
You do, and you're obviously intelligent, so instead of continuing to rebut back and forth I'll rescind my complaints and acknowledge that you make very good points. Sorry about any miscommunications; discussions over the internet have made me twitchy and I took things the wrong way. Thanks for not devolving this into an internet name-calling-fest over my misinterpretations.
What good would be done by.xxx? You're assuming it will all work out perfectly and everyone will move their porn to.xxx. I agree that, in a perfect internet, that's how it would work: Porn companies would move to.xxx, porn companies would get rid of.com/org/net/biz/whatever, parents could block them, URLs would be simple. But to do that there would absolutely have to be someone regulating the other TLDs to make sure there was no porn on it. Which brings two questions:
1. Who gets to decide what is porn? Pakistan would object to women in bikinis. What's ".xxx"? What's suitable for.com?
2. Do we really want an organization trolling the other TLDs and marking up porn?
I'll admit to using the term straw man wrong; my mistake. As for the other TLDs, that was mostly just an attempt to point out that we don't really segregate, and I don't think it would happen with.xxx. Some sites would migrate. But you can bet money Microsoft would try and sue someone into oblivion for registering Microsoft.xxx. And whether or not they win or not, or whether or not they're right, you can be sure that the financial strain would destroy any company.
Because the TLD system is not being appropriately used now for some TLDs you assert it will not be used appropriately if we have more of them. And you think this why? Actually.net,.edu,.gov, and.org are all used appropriately.
Because, as much as you want to point out flaws in my logic, it's based on reality..edu and.gov are ran well because they have strict controls. Are you proposing more strict controls over other TLDs? Like maybe.com. Most companies buy their name in every TLD. It's a fact, not a logic error on my part. They would do the same thing with.xxx. It doesn't matter if they aren't peddling pornography. They'd buy it anyway. You could have a.sucks domain and companies would buy their name in it. It's simply the way companies act: anal and stupid.
You assume that if there was a.xxx porn companies would only have their domains in.xxx. And assumption is the mother of what? I'm stating that it won't happen that way because companies, both in the pornography business and outside, are idiots. I'm not saying porn companies won't buy.xxx, I'm just saying they will not go exclusively to.xxx, and I don't want a bunch of puritan morons deciding what gets to stay in the other TLDs.
And I see another grim possibility:.xxx gets regulated, just like you like it, and Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman pressure ISPs not to allow access to.xxx, or to charge more for it, or some other such bullshit. And that's how it works. Some stores right now don't sell "Parental Advisory" marked CDs. You think some ISPs won't drop.xxx? Can't just say "get another ISP" because some people live in one pony towns and they like porn, too.
As for the please think of the children pleas, that will never stop. After porn is segmented and moved away and there's nary a tit on.com,.net or.org, then they'll move on to something else. Violent flash animations maybe. Your logic is flawed. It is the classic "the world will never be perfect so why make any improvements" logical fallacy.
No it's not. It's a given fact. Those types never freaking stop and they never will. Ceding ground to them won't help. You can look at gun registration in England as an example. First they just wanted to register guns so if you committed a crime with your gun they could find you. Then they decided to ban guns and use the registration lists to go after the owners of guns. Now they're discussing banning knives. In America the puritan religious people would do the same thing with porn. We'd go back to no belly buttons on TV if they had their way. For the children.
My argument was that the "please consider the children" people will never consider the children safe enough. Under any circumstances. You're saying they will? When? When you have to have a finger print scan to watch The Sopranos?
I love how you blame it on religious people in the government. Some of us have other objections to.xxx. Like that it's stupid.
It was religious lobbyists that were behind stopping.xxx via a strongly worded letter from government officials to ICANN. Are you arguing that this is not the case? I did not know anyone was still questioning the chain of events.
I'm not a religious lobbyist. I oppose the.xxx TLD. It's not solely religious lobbyists who oppose the TLD. You don't have to be a religious lobbyist to not like it. Blaming religious lobbyists for the dropping of.xxx is a straw man. There are other people who oppose it, people who have a fair mind about porn and even view it, people who don't believe in any religion. People who do believe in a religion but still think a.xxx domain is stupid for a completely different reason. Like me.
You think Microsoft would tolerate a porn site with flaccid, tiny penises on microsoft.xxx? Or do you think they'd buy the domain right away? What about Disney? Would disney.xxx be porn of characters resembling Snow White and Ariel, or would Disney snap it up? I know there are trademark issues there, but what about apple.xxx? I could think of some fitting porn for that.
I am against any new TLD. I think.biz and.info are stupid. Who uses them? I don't ever visit a.info site. Because anyone who has one just redirects it to.com or.net or.org. We don't segregate TLDs now, we certainly won't with more TLDs. Why not just have a TLD for everything? Because no one would follow it.
Why not a.geek. Slashdot.geek. I mean, it's not really a non-profit charitable organization. It's not a network. It's a geek news site..gns?
I mean, why is it somehow special to have one just for porn? There are a ton of blogs. How about a.blog TLD?.poli for Political sites..fem for Feminists..ass for the American School System.
Throwing TLDs at the internet won't make a difference because we'd have to regulate it to segregate it. Porn companies are just like regular companies, just out to make a buck, and they won't just all fall lock-step into.xxx because it arrives. Especially not when they have well known.com addresses.
There is no way short of regulating it to make sure porn stays in the.xxx domain. And then it gets back to, "What qualifies as porn?"
Not having a.xxx domain sure as hell hasn't slowed down the growth of pornography on the web. Anyone who can't find any porn they want is just stupid. As for the please think of the children pleas, that will never stop. After porn is segmented and moved away and there's nary a tit on.com,.net or.org, then they'll move on to something else. Violent flash animations maybe. Something. Those people have existed and will always exist -- think Tipper Gore and her bored Congresscritter Housewives club -- and the internet didn't start it.
I love how you blame it on religious people in the government. Some of us have other objections to.xxx. Like that it's stupid. All that will happen is current porn sites will also buy a.xxx and ICANN will make a fortune as companies have to buy yet another domain name to make sure they own their domain name with every TLD.
Here come eighty or ninety people who will: Link to Firefox, then be argued with by folks claiming Firefox doesn't have the holes found and talked about because it has such a small percentage. Then there will be the inevitable (and true) posts about how stupid the IE/Windows grafting is, someone will bring up Konqueror/KDE, that will be rebutted, and the rebuttal will be rebutted and so on and so forth, and someone will probably make a GNAA post or an ASCII goatse image. Someone'll probably complain about this story being a dupe or the grammar or something, there might even be a In Soviet Russia joke. There, I just saved everyone the time of reading this thread.
It moved it underground. It didn't stop it. I can guarantee that it still goes on, and possibly on the same level. We banned marijuana decades ago, and it's still out there.
I'm not saying we need to let meth happen, but stopping someone from buying one box of cold pills without jumping through hoops isn't stopping meth production. It's just irritating the piss out of people who can't get to the pharmacy before it closes (not everyone has a 24hr pharmacy to go to). Now, if someone walks up to the register with a cart load of something, or if someone keeps coming back over and over for the pills, that's one thing.
I'm not a happy-feely libertarian drugs-are-okay type. Because some of the consequences of someone using drugs do affect other people, not just the person snorting/injecting/dry-humping the drugs. I just don't like the stupid way they've changed pharmacies. It's a band-aid on a bullet wound.
Oh God, the sharks. I had forgotten about that. Chandra Levy, Monica Lewinski, Cheney shot someone, shark attacks, Missing Blonde Girl of the Week, Celebrity Trial ("Trial of the CENTURY!"). Then the stupid pretend outrage over a politician being crooked, like somehow they weren't aware that 95% of national politicians are crooked. The stupidest is whatever Nancy Grace is talking about at any given moment.
(Well, no, actually, when they talk about violent video games, P2P, or anything technological, THAT is the stupidest because the people mostly come off as completely retarded.)
Okay. I've established that I dislike politicians and news personalities. Rant mode off.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, ALL the damned high school kids seem to flock to it. Think Geocities eight or nine years ago, when there were so many awful Geocities sites by kids with black backgrounds, an awful midi, and bright pink or something text about just stupid, mundane teenager things. (omg teh dramaz)
Now Myspace is a haven for that. It even lets them put in -- gasp -- a freaking video embedded in the page (which is why, under no circumstances, do I visit myspace). They show their -- omg -- creativity and how DIFFERENT they are (by being exactly alike). Plus, the social networking, and the incentive to get more people on it -- of course it gets hits. It's a teenager magnet.
PC's which are cheaper than said console, do alot more than said console, and even cost less than said console.
You obviously don't play current games on a PC. It's ridiculously expensive. But once you've bought a console, you have a good five or six years (PS2 came out in 2000, PSX in 1995) before the next gen. And short of buying an internet adapter (which is cheaper than a high-end video card), you don't really have to make a lot of upgrades. Games for the PS2 made today, work on the PS2 made in 2000.
And, stupidly expensive consoles? I bought a PS2 for under two hundred bucks, a Gamecube for 150 and it had a game with it, and I'm pretty sure the SNES was around that much when I got it.
Handhelds which are instantly outdated...
Okay, this line I saved for last, because it's totally bullshit. The GBA came out in 2001. It's still supported. The only change made was to add a backlight (and make a tiny-ass Gameboy Micro, but you don't have to have a micro to play new games). And it plays games from the original Gameboy. So you can play games from 1989 with it. I wouldn't call three major revisions to the family (Spinach colored, Game Boy Color, and then Game Boy Advance) in seventeen years "instantly outdated."
And I've yet to hear plans for a PSP2, or DS2. How do you define outdated? "They still make software for it and haven't released new systems"?
I mean, I can think of a few reasons why kids wouldn't play games, but instantly outdated handhelds? That's like complaining that your 2005 model car is outdated because they released a 2006 with a different color interior and smaller mirrors.
Those aren't 12-year-olds. Those are FBI agents.
And it's an exception, not the rule. There's not a whole lot of it; two really popular games with a bunch of expansions.
Apparently the morons think the web is a magazine. I have the same problem. At least the site wasn't in flash.
Wal*Mart doesn't have to carry anything that they don't like.
They do in Massachusettes.
One I would never want to be without, because of pdfs:
Target Alert (http://www.bolinfest.com/targetalert/)
Lets you know what you're about to click on. Helpful for stupid webpage owners who don't label mailto or pdf links.
I don't yet understand how doing what this article suggests does anything but drive Apple out of business.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about. If they sell OS X for PCs, how does that drive them out of business? Okay, say OS X PC doesn't sell. No big loss. They can stop. Say OS X does sell, and Apple hardware sales dwindle a bit. They've managed to stay alive with a small, small percent of the market. OS X sells, they get money. Even if hardware sales dwindle.
OS X doesn't sell, they lose very little.
And even if OS X sales are dismal AND Mac sales go down: iPod. Apple is the undeniable king of the mountain with the iPod. And they still make money off of things like Final Cut (which is bloody expensive).
Releasing OS X for generic PCs would help Apple far more than it would hurt; "Oooh, I like this. Maybe I should buy a Mac next time..."
(Disclaimer: I have never owned a Macintosh of any sort, and I will never buy an iPod at the current prices. I don't even really have any interest in OS X on PC. I'm just an economics nerd.)
Why in the hell is there such outcry in outsourcing?
When it's YOUR job that gets outsourced, that's when it's a big deal.
I have to agree, and point out that the same thing is happening to nursing. There's this huge demand for new nurses (ten million new nurses by 2010 is the current pushed figure), and so everyone and their cat at my college wants a nursing degree. They think, oh, I can do that. And some of them are just downright stupid and have no business being in a job with more responsibility than fries and a shake. They figure if nurses are needed, nurses will get paid more and have job security.
Fortunately enough, nursing programs aren't easy, and most of these people won't make through two semesters. But yes, people tend to go for what will make them money, even if they hate it. Comp Sci isn't seen as a feild that will make big bucks anymore. That is enough for most people. "No money? Me no major in it!"
Well, if you're using your Gmail to plan the systematic murder of eleven million or so people...
That case is an exception, not the rule, and that is an extraordinary circumstance.
Yes. It's called ex post facto law. They can't pass a law against something in 2007 and arrest you if they have evidence you're doing it in 2006.
Non-geeks in the US are pretty damn fat, too. I can't go anywhere without seeing a bunch of tubby women with tubby children. And most of them probably can't even program their VCR. This is a silly article; there are a lot of healthy geeks. There are a lot of unhealthy geeks. Obesity is a huge problem in the United states. There are also little dweeby twerpy guys who are completely lost when sitting at a computer and have an inhaler.
This article is based on the flawed assumption that somehow geeks are more likely to be unhealthy than other people. I should write an article about how we're less likely to get skin cancer because we don't bake until we're orange every year.
Insomnia and altered sleep patterns is one of the most common complaints to my office.
Insomnia and altered sleep patterns are a common complaint, period. That's why Ambien is able to sell their sleep medicine for such a ridiculous price.
Back pain is a frequent complaint in my office as well.
And I'm sure it's not at a warehouse.
This article is seriously flawed.
Read the guy's other posts on this topic. He's simply batshit crazy.
You are an idiot conspiracy theorist. I bet you think that the National Guard blew up the levees too.
There are still going to be public schools, moron. But it's going to be a while before people who got free houses get new free houses on everyone else's dime. Especially since most of them don't want to work. Businesses in NO are begging for employees right now. Anyone of any color could get a great start if they wanted to actually fucking work.
There are just race baiting whiners like you and Cynthia "I get to punch cops 'cos I'm black" McKinney, and all the people who expect everything to be handed to them. Sorry if people aren't willing to just build a whole city for lazy people who want to stay in nice hotels (on the tax payers dollar) until everything is done for them.
I concede defeat; I see your points. I just fear the incredible stupidity of the censors and the like. They do have a lot of power (and despite what slashbots say, it isn't just because Bush is in office). The last thing we need is a Jack Thompson of domain names. I still personally don't support a .xxx TLD.
You do, and you're obviously intelligent, so instead of continuing to rebut back and forth I'll rescind my complaints and acknowledge that you make very good points. Sorry about any miscommunications; discussions over the internet have made me twitchy and I took things the wrong way. Thanks for not devolving this into an internet name-calling-fest over my misinterpretations.
What good would be done by .xxx? You're assuming it will all work out perfectly and everyone will move their porn to .xxx. I agree that, in a perfect internet, that's how it would work: Porn companies would move to .xxx, porn companies would get rid of .com/org/net/biz/whatever, parents could block them, URLs would be simple. But to do that there would absolutely have to be someone regulating the other TLDs to make sure there was no porn on it. Which brings two questions:
.com?
.xxx. Some sites would migrate. But you can bet money Microsoft would try and sue someone into oblivion for registering Microsoft.xxx. And whether or not they win or not, or whether or not they're right, you can be sure that the financial strain would destroy any company.
.net, .edu, .gov, and .org are all used appropriately.
.edu and .gov are ran well because they have strict controls. Are you proposing more strict controls over other TLDs? Like maybe .com. Most companies buy their name in every TLD. It's a fact, not a logic error on my part. They would do the same thing with .xxx. It doesn't matter if they aren't peddling pornography. They'd buy it anyway. You could have a .sucks domain and companies would buy their name in it. It's simply the way companies act: anal and stupid.
.xxx porn companies would only have their domains in .xxx. And assumption is the mother of what? I'm stating that it won't happen that way because companies, both in the pornography business and outside, are idiots. I'm not saying porn companies won't buy .xxx, I'm just saying they will not go exclusively to .xxx, and I don't want a bunch of puritan morons deciding what gets to stay in the other TLDs.
.xxx gets regulated, just like you like it, and Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman pressure ISPs not to allow access to .xxx, or to charge more for it, or some other such bullshit. And that's how it works. Some stores right now don't sell "Parental Advisory" marked CDs. You think some ISPs won't drop .xxx? Can't just say "get another ISP" because some people live in one pony towns and they like porn, too.
1. Who gets to decide what is porn? Pakistan would object to women in bikinis. What's ".xxx"? What's suitable for
2. Do we really want an organization trolling the other TLDs and marking up porn?
I'll admit to using the term straw man wrong; my mistake. As for the other TLDs, that was mostly just an attempt to point out that we don't really segregate, and I don't think it would happen with
Because the TLD system is not being appropriately used now for some TLDs you assert it will not be used appropriately if we have more of them. And you think this why? Actually
Because, as much as you want to point out flaws in my logic, it's based on reality.
You assume that if there was a
And I see another grim possibility:
No it's not. It's a given fact. Those types never freaking stop and they never will. Ceding ground to them won't help. You can look at gun registration in England as an example. First they just wanted to register guns so if you committed a crime with your gun they could find you. Then they decided to ban guns and use the registration lists to go after the owners of guns. Now they're discussing banning knives. In America the puritan religious people would do the same thing with porn. We'd go back to no belly buttons on TV if they had their way. For the children.
My argument was that the "please consider the children" people will never consider the children safe enough. Under any circumstances. You're saying they will? When? When you have to have a finger print scan to watch The Sopranos?
I'm not a religious lobbyist. I oppose the
You think Microsoft would tolerate a porn site with flaccid, tiny penises on microsoft.xxx? Or do you think they'd buy the domain right away? What about Disney? Would disney.xxx be porn of characters resembling Snow White and Ariel, or would Disney snap it up? I know there are trademark issues there, but what about apple.xxx? I could think of some fitting porn for that.
I am against any new TLD. I think
Why not a
I mean, why is it somehow special to have one just for porn? There are a ton of blogs. How about a
Throwing TLDs at the internet won't make a difference because we'd have to regulate it to segregate it. Porn companies are just like regular companies, just out to make a buck, and they won't just all fall lock-step into
There is no way short of regulating it to make sure porn stays in the .xxx domain. And then it gets back to, "What qualifies as porn?"
.xxx domain sure as hell hasn't slowed down the growth of pornography on the web. Anyone who can't find any porn they want is just stupid. As for the please think of the children pleas, that will never stop. After porn is segmented and moved away and there's nary a tit on .com, .net or .org, then they'll move on to something else. Violent flash animations maybe. Something. Those people have existed and will always exist -- think Tipper Gore and her bored Congresscritter Housewives club -- and the internet didn't start it.
.xxx. Like that it's stupid. All that will happen is current porn sites will also buy a .xxx and ICANN will make a fortune as companies have to buy yet another domain name to make sure they own their domain name with every TLD.
Not having a
I love how you blame it on religious people in the government. Some of us have other objections to
Pico.
Here come eighty or ninety people who will: Link to Firefox, then be argued with by folks claiming Firefox doesn't have the holes found and talked about because it has such a small percentage. Then there will be the inevitable (and true) posts about how stupid the IE/Windows grafting is, someone will bring up Konqueror/KDE, that will be rebutted, and the rebuttal will be rebutted and so on and so forth, and someone will probably make a GNAA post or an ASCII goatse image. Someone'll probably complain about this story being a dupe or the grammar or something, there might even be a In Soviet Russia joke. There, I just saved everyone the time of reading this thread.
It moved it underground. It didn't stop it. I can guarantee that it still goes on, and possibly on the same level. We banned marijuana decades ago, and it's still out there.
I'm not saying we need to let meth happen, but stopping someone from buying one box of cold pills without jumping through hoops isn't stopping meth production. It's just irritating the piss out of people who can't get to the pharmacy before it closes (not everyone has a 24hr pharmacy to go to). Now, if someone walks up to the register with a cart load of something, or if someone keeps coming back over and over for the pills, that's one thing.
I'm not a happy-feely libertarian drugs-are-okay type. Because some of the consequences of someone using drugs do affect other people, not just the person snorting/injecting/dry-humping the drugs. I just don't like the stupid way they've changed pharmacies. It's a band-aid on a bullet wound.
Oh God, the sharks. I had forgotten about that. Chandra Levy, Monica Lewinski, Cheney shot someone, shark attacks, Missing Blonde Girl of the Week, Celebrity Trial ("Trial of the CENTURY!"). Then the stupid pretend outrage over a politician being crooked, like somehow they weren't aware that 95% of national politicians are crooked. The stupidest is whatever Nancy Grace is talking about at any given moment.
(Well, no, actually, when they talk about violent video games, P2P, or anything technological, THAT is the stupidest because the people mostly come off as completely retarded.)
Okay. I've established that I dislike politicians and news personalities. Rant mode off.