Dan tells us that this was a "heart pounding game" when compared to the otherwise dull environment of the Xerox document/desktop metaphor. He noted that you could "shoot" your opponent if they did not see you (their eyeball character was facing away from you). He also notes that you could "hide" in parts of the maze and wait in ambush.
Wow, so sniping in FPS can be traced all the way back to the 70s. I wonder if other players complained about it back then, also.
The Firefox download for Windows is 4.6MB. For it's feature set, this is a small application and can hardly be considered bloated.
You compare Firefox and Konqueror on two different architectures. When using them both in Linux on P3 and P4 machines, Firefox seems every bit as fast to me, though it starts up a bit slower. Once it's set up with my preferred set of extensions (easy-gestures, bookmarks synchronizer, web-developer, adblock), it provides the best browsing experience I've encountered. This extension system is another reason Firefox avoids bloat. Basic features are built in and users are free to add desired functionality, though adblock ought to be included, IMO.
On my Windows P4/1.8, Firefox page loading is at least as fast, if not faster than IE.
Quality still matters, and will command a premium. With regard to calculators, look at HP. They stopped making quality calculators and now sell the same cheap pieces of plastic that TI and Casio offer. As a result, the few remaining 32SII models out there are retailing for $350 new (originally $80) or $250 used on eBay.
It's hard to imagine open hardware approaching where nVidia and ATI are at any time soon. Current mid-range graphic cards seem like a good deal to me, but maybe that's because I can remember when decent mechanical design software would only run on expensive workstations with $3000 graphic cards.
I consider IHT to be best-designed online version of a newspaper, mainly because of their use of javascript and css. With ad-blocking, it is the paradigm of readability and usability. Their use of alternate stylesheets and a clipping manager should be a model for other papers.
Now, if only their content weren't so left-leaning...
You're correlating quality with bitrate, whereas the submitter seems to be talking about perception. I think the latter is a more appropriate, albeit somewhat vague, measure.
I've been a very happy rhapsody subscriber for a couple of years. They've done everything right. Good pricing, elegant interface, lots of additional artist information available, tight and fast performance, no ads, no spyware, lightweight, low overhead, etc. When I'm on a PC, it's playing music and never disrupts what else is going on, even with processor-intensive applications running. It just works perfectly and unobtrusively. Plus, their library is extensive and always expanding.
Naturally, when Real bought Rhapsody I got scared. Rhapsody uses WMP and Real is reportedly looking to switch over to RM. This could be good or bad. They can use a lightweight realplayer with rhapsody to send me tunes and easily add Linux and MaxOS support in the process, or they can use the current memory-consuming version of RP10 that doesn't run under Linux, and I'll cancel my subscription. The version of RP10 for Linux is much lighter than the Windows version, but ironically, they don't offer it for Windows.
In May, Chicago tested a red light camera system for two weeks then started using it to issue citations.
On August 28, I received a citation in the mail for a red light violation. The photo was taken May 12 and showed that I coasted through a right-on-red at a blazing 11mph instead of coming to a complete stop. For this, I am fined $90.
From articles in the Chicago Tribune, it is clear that the photo was taken during the 'testing' period and that the city has since gone back to those test shots and issued citations, in my case three and a half months after the fact.
I'm now more careful to come to an absolute complete stop when making a right on red (in Chicago during rush hour, this will often elicit a honk from the driver behind you), but I'll dread checking the mail for the next three months.
I prefer ICC because I have to play. While there are a few exceptions, the players on ICC tend to be far more mature than any free chess service. I suspect this is because there is a cost of entry.
On my Philips Series 1, both the IR Blaster and Serial port are 1/8" headphone jacks. I'm using a Comcast HD box, and it receives a 1/8" headphone jack, also.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I connected to the IR Blaster, and the serial is for some satellite boxes. I don't feel like dragging the TV stand out to check.
The interesting thing is, when calling up the firmware diagnostic screen, there is actually an entry labeled "IR Blast enabled:" followed by "YES" or "NO". Until around June, mine was set to NO, but at some point they updated the box. The HD newsgroups indicated that all boxes were initially enabled, then Comcast disabled them when it rolled out its own PVR option. I'm not sure if mine was re-enabled intentionally, but I'm not complaining. It's worth searching the message boards that are out there.
If you go with Comcast HD, request the Motorola DCT5100 box. As I recall, Comcast has another HD box that does not have a control input in the back.
I tried IR blast before it was enabled and experienced around 10% failure rate, even at the slowest setting. I tried a bunch of fixes, to no avail. This was unacceptable, so I went back to TiVo's tuner and settled for not being able to record anything over channel 100.
Comcast digital boxes have a plug in the back that can make a direct connection to TiVo's IR blaster. Until a few months ago, they disabled this feature, but sometime around June, they sent a firmware update to my box that re-enabled it.
I now have HDTV digital cable and error-free TiVo channel selection.
This particular story may be a hoax, as others have pointed out, but how could Apple not be looking to add wireless to the iPod?
Wireless means:
no cables when synchronizing
play songs on the stereo while holding the iPod on the couch
share songs with people you don't know (and can't see) at the airport (ok, less likely given DRM, but cool).
With mp3 functionality being integrated into all-in-one cellphones, Apple could also being looking into this market, which may be critical for the survival of the iPod. And who better than Apple to give a simple interface that controls all these functions?
BTW, I'm willing to give out gmail invites in exchange for completed referrals at freeipods.com.
Certainly there are alternatives to the iPod that will play more formats and give you more storage; however, there are none with nearly as effective an interface. The iPod makes a 3000 song collection manageable on a handheld device. The Archos and iRiver certainly don't accomplish this.
BTW, I'll trade a gmail invite for a freeipods referral.
Your comment might be construed as saying "Ashcroft may be a bad guy, but he's not Catholic", implying that being Catholic would make him somehow worse.
As I pointed out in a reply to another poster, you really should read the privacy statements that your bank and credit card companies send you via postal mail once a year. In light of the emergence of megabanks, such as Citi and Chase, which can share all your information among subsidiaries, not to mention everything that can be found out from your credit report, I think taking the position you state seems a little superfluous.
MS and Quicken both allow users to store all their financial information online and access via Money and Quicken. I wouldn't trust either company with this info. However, I trust google much more than companies that already have intimate knowledge of nearly all my financial information.
While your post is in jest, the thing is, I trust google to know my financial information more than I trust my bank. Do you ever read the 'privacy disclosure' they send you once a year by postal mail? It's the flimsy pamphlet with really tiny type size. Also, look at how information is transferred with the credit reporting system.
If you spend too much time thinking about it, you get the urge to close all accounts and keep money under the mattress.
Google's killer app seems to be converging to finding exactly the information one needs with the simplest interface possible. To accomplish this, they're getting in the business of storing and processing our information, and by (so far), not being evil, we trust them to do so.
With gmail, we can search all old emails with the same simple interface as searching the web. Now, add IM transcripts (great for business), PIM information, etc. Maybe someday, they'll aggregate even more personal stuff, like bank statements, my car's service history, and so on.
The end result? With the beautifully simple default google interface, I could ask:
Show me the conversation with my boss regarding TPS reports.
What did I spend on dining out last month?
When is the kids' pediatrician appointment?
How do I get there?
Think of any piece of information you recently looked up or asked for, on computer or hardcopy. Imagine typing it into google and getting the answer.
It could be really cool, and kinda creepy. MS and Yahoo are at a disadvantage to pull this off because: they're behind the curve on search engine technology (look at MS's recently yanked beta), they'll never take the leap of faith to give users an incredibly stripped, ad-free interface (I know yahoo offers one, but they deemphasize it), and not nearly as many people will trust them with this stuff as would trust google.
None of the articles imply that this is happening only in the U.S.
From the Slashdot FAQ:
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope? Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
It was an attempt to take Office's already inflated pricing and force people into a subscription model. Many people are quite happy with the last version of Word they purchased, whether it was '95 or XP. There is a justifiable reluctance to pay for it over and over.
MS was approaching a total monopoly in the office suite. Now that there seems to be stable competition in the form of openoffice.org and WordPerfect's dogged survivalism this is less the case. Two years ago it was reasonable to envision a future MS operating system that only worked with subscription-based apps (I can still see this, but it will be hard sell).
Many reports indicated MS would not provide a means to get a local copy of your data in this system, i.e., stop subscribing and lose all your documents. As I recall, MS was cagey on this issue.
More importantly, if this is provided by open-source software, then you can pick your provider much like a web-hosting service. You may first decide you want a linux/apache solution with shell-access, then choose between a provider with triple-redundancy and a premium price, or an $8/month plan. api: Interface XDesktop can provide similar choice and flexibility. Do you think you'll find this from MS?
I disagree. You make black and white distinctions. We're fuzzier. In the end I believe I have more freedom of speech here in England than you do in the US - particularly given your current fear and paranoia abused by Bush to silence criticism in a way that I haven't heard of since McCarthyism or the USSR.
It's because freedom of speech in the U.S. is black and white that I feel it is better protected. Fuzzy protections are easier to change and more open to whimsical interpretation. I simply don't see any evidence of the McCarthyistic 'fear and paranoia' tactics to stifle speech you mention, other than throngs of hysterical Bush antagonists invoking it, which then makes a self-defeating argument, as the adminstration takes no action against these folks.
I don't understand the distinction - both are by legal means. We just use different instruments. Or are you making a religious appeal to the Glory of the Constitution?
In the U.S., freedoms recognized in the Constition are better protected than those prescribed only by law. The former requires approval by direct vote in 2/3s of the states while the latter can be changed at any time by the current legistlature. Naturally, Constitutionally protected freedoms are much stronger and more durable, though I'm baffled by your invocation of religion in this context.
Again you are making meaningless distinctions. What is the difference between four government run TV stations and four Murdoch owned TV stations? Either way: no choice, no freedom.
Again, you are failing to grasp important distinctions, and I'm calling BS on your assertion that we have no choice in media content. Murdoch may own tv networks in the U.S., but so does the left-wing Ted Turner. There's Fox News, CNN, a few hundred other cable offerings and if you don't think you have choice in how you get your news, turn off the TV and call up democrats.com and newsmax.com and compare them. First ammendment protections for corporations do not limit media choices. You're able to get your content through whatever colored glasses you like. The argument that Murdoch controls your information flow is bogus to me.
Finally I'm not arguing that we're better (or worse) than you - just that there are other ways to handle these things and the US Constitution ain't the final word on jurisprudence.
A flippant dismissal of the Constitution belies the import of this instrument. Like many Americans, I take a certain self-righteous pride in our Constitution and believe it to be the best document of its type, though many are modeled after it. It bestows broad, immutable freedoms with simple statements and establishes robust mechanisms for maintaining good government over long periods of time or through dramatic changes. We've certainly seen this since September 11, as the three branches government have each pursued their respective Constitutional responsibilities while enacting checks on one another. While the visible result of this are a lot of hysterical claims that we are either in incredible peril from further attack or are becoming a fascist state, the fact is, a 228 year old document is doing a good job of working through a very complex, constrained optimization problem to balance personal freedom with national security for nearly 200 million people. I take unapologetic pride in seeing this process transpire. The U.S. constitution seems to be in stark contrast to the direction the EU is headed in developing its constitution, and while I'm sure that statement could start yet another long discussion, it'll have to wait for another day.
We get by in Britain quite well where companies do not have the rights of an individual - this is a very American concept probably due to the dominance of the corporations in your company^H^H^H^H^H^H (sorry) country;-)
It seems in vogue to make fun of civil liberties in America and claim corporate domininance in this field, but my perception is just the opposite. Speech seems much better protected here than in Britain and most of Europe where there exists much lower standards for proving libel (which chills speach), fewer protections for parody against claims of trademark and copyright by corporations and incredibly broad restriction on hate speech, the definition of which is left to politicians who are currently in power.
Generally speaking an individuals speech needs protection for we are weak compared to the might and wealth of a company. Most companies can defend much of their rights by leaning on the rights of the individuals who comprise the company (apart from the obvious of outright buying hordes of lawyers, then the courts and the politicians).
I see this in a different light. An individual has little chance to sway public opinion, but a collection of individuals under the umbrella of a non-profit corporation does.
Over here in Britain, we are quite used to separating an individual acting on their own and as an officer of a company.
But why should you need to? It seems you are then left with silly concerns like which email address was used to send a message and whether a statement was made on company letterhead.
Finally, surely freedom of the press is prescribed specifically in both our nation's law books.
I'd rather the freedom be prescribed in the Constitution, which is the case when media corporations are afforded first ammendment rights.
Sadly, either way we both get to hear what Rupert Murdoch wants us to here and little else besides...
I disagree. You have complete control over what media sources you consume and a plethora of options. It's when the government insists on 'balancing' your choices that you end up with things like four government-run TV stations and nothing else. Your frustration seems not that Murdoch controls the information you get, it's that so many people choose to get their information from Murdoch.
While we're on the subject, I have to defend Reagan, who was maligned at the beginning of this thread. Whether you agree or disagree with his choice on corporate first ammendment protections, he was very much a proponent of individual rights, which was evident not in the programs he initiated, but the ones that he fervently opposed, such as national ID cards.
How do you distinguish between an individual's speech and a corporation's?
To not recognize free speech by corporate entities will simply invite assault on individual free speech by claiming the individual is speaking for the corporation, i.e. we'll restrict Richard Stallman's speech because he's really speaking for the FSF.
Why would you want a system where a newspaper does not have first ammendment protections, but an individual does?
Slashdot Mirror
from the article:
Wow, so sniping in FPS can be traced all the way back to the 70s. I wonder if other players complained about it back then, also.
The Firefox download for Windows is 4.6MB. For it's feature set, this is a small application and can hardly be considered bloated.
You compare Firefox and Konqueror on two different architectures. When using them both in Linux on P3 and P4 machines, Firefox seems every bit as fast to me, though it starts up a bit slower. Once it's set up with my preferred set of extensions (easy-gestures, bookmarks synchronizer, web-developer, adblock), it provides the best browsing experience I've encountered. This extension system is another reason Firefox avoids bloat. Basic features are built in and users are free to add desired functionality, though adblock ought to be included, IMO.
On my Windows P4/1.8, Firefox page loading is at least as fast, if not faster than IE.
Quality still matters, and will command a premium. With regard to calculators, look at HP. They stopped making quality calculators and now sell the same cheap pieces of plastic that TI and Casio offer. As a result, the few remaining 32SII models out there are retailing for $350 new (originally $80) or $250 used on eBay.
It's hard to imagine open hardware approaching where nVidia and ATI are at any time soon. Current mid-range graphic cards seem like a good deal to me, but maybe that's because I can remember when decent mechanical design software would only run on expensive workstations with $3000 graphic cards.
I consider IHT to be best-designed online version of a newspaper, mainly because of their use of javascript and css. With ad-blocking, it is the paradigm of readability and usability. Their use of alternate stylesheets and a clipping manager should be a model for other papers.
Now, if only their content weren't so left-leaning...
You're correlating quality with bitrate, whereas the submitter seems to be talking about perception. I think the latter is a more appropriate, albeit somewhat vague, measure.
(1) Half of the time he doesn't make any commentary of his own, just a "Heh" or "Interesting." Come on! I expect a little better from a professor.
This is part of why I like instapundit. His hunger for info closely matches my own, thus he scans dozens of blogs so I don't have to.
I've been a very happy rhapsody subscriber for a couple of years. They've done everything right. Good pricing, elegant interface, lots of additional artist information available, tight and fast performance, no ads, no spyware, lightweight, low overhead, etc. When I'm on a PC, it's playing music and never disrupts what else is going on, even with processor-intensive applications running. It just works perfectly and unobtrusively. Plus, their library is extensive and always expanding.
Naturally, when Real bought Rhapsody I got scared. Rhapsody uses WMP and Real is reportedly looking to switch over to RM. This could be good or bad. They can use a lightweight realplayer with rhapsody to send me tunes and easily add Linux and MaxOS support in the process, or they can use the current memory-consuming version of RP10 that doesn't run under Linux, and I'll cancel my subscription. The version of RP10 for Linux is much lighter than the Windows version, but ironically, they don't offer it for Windows.
I'm not real optimistic.
In May, Chicago tested a red light camera system for two weeks then started using it to issue citations.
On August 28, I received a citation in the mail for a red light violation. The photo was taken May 12 and showed that I coasted through a right-on-red at a blazing 11mph instead of coming to a complete stop. For this, I am fined $90.
From articles in the Chicago Tribune, it is clear that the photo was taken during the 'testing' period and that the city has since gone back to those test shots and issued citations, in my case three and a half months after the fact.
I'm now more careful to come to an absolute complete stop when making a right on red (in Chicago during rush hour, this will often elicit a honk from the driver behind you), but I'll dread checking the mail for the next three months.
that should have read 'because I have to pay'.
I prefer ICC because I have to play. While there are a few exceptions, the players on ICC tend to be far more mature than any free chess service. I suspect this is because there is a cost of entry.
What's next? Accusing someone of copying the order of items on a store shelf?
Actually, the folks who own the Dewey Decimal system have done just that.
On my Philips Series 1, both the IR Blaster and Serial port are 1/8" headphone jacks. I'm using a Comcast HD box, and it receives a 1/8" headphone jack, also.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I connected to the IR Blaster, and the serial is for some satellite boxes. I don't feel like dragging the TV stand out to check.
The interesting thing is, when calling up the firmware diagnostic screen, there is actually an entry labeled "IR Blast enabled:" followed by "YES" or "NO". Until around June, mine was set to NO, but at some point they updated the box. The HD newsgroups indicated that all boxes were initially enabled, then Comcast disabled them when it rolled out its own PVR option. I'm not sure if mine was re-enabled intentionally, but I'm not complaining. It's worth searching the message boards that are out there.
If you go with Comcast HD, request the Motorola DCT5100 box. As I recall, Comcast has another HD box that does not have a control input in the back.
I tried IR blast before it was enabled and experienced around 10% failure rate, even at the slowest setting. I tried a bunch of fixes, to no avail. This was unacceptable, so I went back to TiVo's tuner and settled for not being able to record anything over channel 100.
Comcast digital boxes have a plug in the back that can make a direct connection to TiVo's IR blaster. Until a few months ago, they disabled this feature, but sometime around June, they sent a firmware update to my box that re-enabled it.
I now have HDTV digital cable and error-free TiVo channel selection.
This particular story may be a hoax, as others have pointed out, but how could Apple not be looking to add wireless to the iPod?
Wireless means:
With mp3 functionality being integrated into all-in-one cellphones, Apple could also being looking into this market, which may be critical for the survival of the iPod. And who better than Apple to give a simple interface that controls all these functions? BTW, I'm willing to give out gmail invites in exchange for completed referrals at freeipods.com.
and it will play any MP3 you put on there
iPods play mp3s
Certainly there are alternatives to the iPod that will play more formats and give you more storage; however, there are none with nearly as effective an interface. The iPod makes a 3000 song collection manageable on a handheld device. The Archos and iRiver certainly don't accomplish this.
BTW, I'll trade a gmail invite for a freeipods referral.
Your comment might be construed as saying "Ashcroft may be a bad guy, but he's not Catholic", implying that being Catholic would make him somehow worse.
Was that your intention?
As I pointed out in a reply to another poster, you really should read the privacy statements that your bank and credit card companies send you via postal mail once a year. In light of the emergence of megabanks, such as Citi and Chase, which can share all your information among subsidiaries, not to mention everything that can be found out from your credit report, I think taking the position you state seems a little superfluous.
MS and Quicken both allow users to store all their financial information online and access via Money and Quicken. I wouldn't trust either company with this info. However, I trust google much more than companies that already have intimate knowledge of nearly all my financial information.
While your post is in jest, the thing is, I trust google to know my financial information more than I trust my bank. Do you ever read the 'privacy disclosure' they send you once a year by postal mail? It's the flimsy pamphlet with really tiny type size. Also, look at how information is transferred with the credit reporting system.
If you spend too much time thinking about it, you get the urge to close all accounts and keep money under the mattress.
With gmail, we can search all old emails with the same simple interface as searching the web. Now, add IM transcripts (great for business), PIM information, etc. Maybe someday, they'll aggregate even more personal stuff, like bank statements, my car's service history, and so on.
The end result? With the beautifully simple default google interface, I could ask:
Think of any piece of information you recently looked up or asked for, on computer or hardcopy. Imagine typing it into google and getting the answer.
It could be really cool, and kinda creepy. MS and Yahoo are at a disadvantage to pull this off because: they're behind the curve on search engine technology (look at MS's recently yanked beta), they'll never take the leap of faith to give users an incredibly stripped, ad-free interface (I know yahoo offers one, but they deemphasize it), and not nearly as many people will trust them with this stuff as would trust google.
IM makes a nice next step.
None of the articles imply that this is happening only in the U.S.
From the Slashdot FAQ:
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
If open-source software creates the competition necessary to pull MS pricing down to reasonable levels, then it is serving a valuable purpose.
If MS keeps their prices inflated, then expect to see OSS actually be deployed.
More importantly, if this is provided by open-source software, then you can pick your provider much like a web-hosting service. You may first decide you want a linux/apache solution with shell-access, then choose between a provider with triple-redundancy and a premium price, or an $8/month plan. api: Interface XDesktop can provide similar choice and flexibility. Do you think you'll find this from MS?
It's because freedom of speech in the U.S. is black and white that I feel it is better protected. Fuzzy protections are easier to change and more open to whimsical interpretation. I simply don't see any evidence of the McCarthyistic 'fear and paranoia' tactics to stifle speech you mention, other than throngs of hysterical Bush antagonists invoking it, which then makes a self-defeating argument, as the adminstration takes no action against these folks.
In the U.S., freedoms recognized in the Constition are better protected than those prescribed only by law. The former requires approval by direct vote in 2/3s of the states while the latter can be changed at any time by the current legistlature. Naturally, Constitutionally protected freedoms are much stronger and more durable, though I'm baffled by your invocation of religion in this context.
Again, you are failing to grasp important distinctions, and I'm calling BS on your assertion that we have no choice in media content. Murdoch may own tv networks in the U.S., but so does the left-wing Ted Turner. There's Fox News, CNN, a few hundred other cable offerings and if you don't think you have choice in how you get your news, turn off the TV and call up democrats.com and newsmax.com and compare them. First ammendment protections for corporations do not limit media choices. You're able to get your content through whatever colored glasses you like. The argument that Murdoch controls your information flow is bogus to me.
A flippant dismissal of the Constitution belies the import of this instrument. Like many Americans, I take a certain self-righteous pride in our Constitution and believe it to be the best document of its type, though many are modeled after it. It bestows broad, immutable freedoms with simple statements and establishes robust mechanisms for maintaining good government over long periods of time or through dramatic changes. We've certainly seen this since September 11, as the three branches government have each pursued their respective Constitutional responsibilities while enacting checks on one another. While the visible result of this are a lot of hysterical claims that we are either in incredible peril from further attack or are becoming a fascist state, the fact is, a 228 year old document is doing a good job of working through a very complex, constrained optimization problem to balance personal freedom with national security for nearly 200 million people. I take unapologetic pride in seeing this process transpire. The U.S. constitution seems to be in stark contrast to the direction the EU is headed in developing its constitution, and while I'm sure that statement could start yet another long discussion, it'll have to wait for another day.
It seems in vogue to make fun of civil liberties in America and claim corporate domininance in this field, but my perception is just the opposite. Speech seems much better protected here than in Britain and most of Europe where there exists much lower standards for proving libel (which chills speach), fewer protections for parody against claims of trademark and copyright by corporations and incredibly broad restriction on hate speech, the definition of which is left to politicians who are currently in power.
I see this in a different light. An individual has little chance to sway public opinion, but a collection of individuals under the umbrella of a non-profit corporation does.
But why should you need to? It seems you are then left with silly concerns like which email address was used to send a message and whether a statement was made on company letterhead.
I'd rather the freedom be prescribed in the Constitution, which is the case when media corporations are afforded first ammendment rights.
I disagree. You have complete control over what media sources you consume and a plethora of options. It's when the government insists on 'balancing' your choices that you end up with things like four government-run TV stations and nothing else. Your frustration seems not that Murdoch controls the information you get, it's that so many people choose to get their information from Murdoch.
While we're on the subject, I have to defend Reagan, who was maligned at the beginning of this thread. Whether you agree or disagree with his choice on corporate first ammendment protections, he was very much a proponent of individual rights, which was evident not in the programs he initiated, but the ones that he fervently opposed, such as national ID cards.
What's the alternative?