It's not about debt or anything that complicated. Just restoring regulations THAT WE HAD YEARS AGO would help immensely
Yeah, the Government should decide how we listen to music. They sure have had some great ideas about Internet privacy. Power to the government! Sorry I couldn't resist a little snark:P
I'm unconvinced. Myself, I'd rather not have regulation that says we need to regulate the Internet like a series of tubes. How about, we all just listen/buy the stuff we like, and ignore the lame? It's not like we don't have literally millions of entertainment sources. When you involve regulation and Government you get the politicians and Big Money involved. I don't think those guys have our best interests at heart...
It would make a crazy sort of sense, yes? If Angry Birds was actually malware...
Or if Fox News wanted to pick a popular application that a significant portion of the human race has heard of. Nope, it must be because Fox News is STOOOPID.
I guess since they are anarchists, when they are caught we can just forget all the usual mumbo jumbo about rights and privileges shoot them on the spot?
Unfortunately they have 'eco' in their class description. Therefore normal rules of science politics. And no, you can't shoot 'em...
China is growing quickly, but it's because they have a lot of room to grow. Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.
You complained about Fox News campaign coverage by John Prescott Ellis. I cited Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthew's Election coverage. So?
The Corporate media has numerous outlets sympathetic to the left, and really only sympathetic to the right.
Here's the question I keep asking, only to receive down mods and straw men about who is more biased offered in return: Is the country healthier of only one side of the argument is heard in the corporate media?
I'm not sure what Ted Kennedy has to do with the Wall Street Journal being accused of propaganda by the New York Times? (pot>kettle=You're all black)
Many/. mods seem to censor dissenting opinions to the "Fox News is Evil meme", in the name of tolerance and open mindedness I'm sure, so I'm going to stop wasting my time here on this topic.
That doesn't prove Fox News is MORE biased, only that they are. How do you quantify which is more biased? Obviously your opinion carries more weight for you, and mine for me.
To me the issue isn't whether bias exists. It does. To me the issue is whether the United States is a better place if both political points of view and parties are held accountable by the corporate media. My answer is yes, it is. But I don't drink any particular Party's cool-aid, YMMV.
Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I love the Interwebs! But you said demonstrably more biased, then accused anyone not sharing your opinion of lying. By all means, please demonstrate how Fox is more biased than say, MSNBC. You might even convince me. I would be more receptive to your arguments, however, if you hadn't described voicing an alternate opinion as lying. Opinions can be wrong, but they can't be lies.
I suppose Fox News does look pretty right wing when compared to NBC's (and the rest of the press') handling of George Zimmerman. Or the WaPo splashing an unverifiable Mitt Romney high school story on their front page, while refusing to press for President Obama's college records. Or CBS' fake George Bush National Guard memos. And so on and so on.
Would it be better for the Country if only one political point of view was held accountable by the corporate media?
There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.
Wait, so the Democratic politician who stood up to end this ridiculous program meant to move US jobs overseas is the bad guy?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you're planning to vote for Mitt Romney.
What about the Republican Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.), that co-wrote the letter? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably think the Democrats are the good guys, despite the fact that Obama nominated an RIAA shill to be solicitor general. I don't think it's Democrats vs Republicans as much as it is politicians and their friends vs us.
Hard to swim for the mobile market while chained to the enterprise PC market. Will the MS model remain profitable when the primary web access vector is appliance based?
How do you freeze the market so everyone can play? Using laws written by our incredibly astute US Congress perhaps? Myself, I'd rather a small risk of someone cornering certain web markets will retard growth in that sector for awhile, over the larger risk that government regulation to fix a currently non existent problem will cause problems for all sectors of the Internet.
How are we not consumers of the web right now as we post to Slashdot? Does designing a web site or killer application, creating a blog or posting on Facebook or Pinterest make the user something other than a web consumer? The web is access to a shared communication system of unimaginable complexity balanced on a basic protocol suite designed by the ongoing collaborative engineering efforts of the IETF.
So, how, exactly, does my previous statement claim the web is a fancy TV?
But it seems to me he wants to freeze natural development of the market into something more friendly to his core business. I don't think doing so is in OUR best interest as WEB consumers.
How will we die if the globe warms up a little? Historically warmer periods have been prosperous times for humans. More people die from not being able to afford heating oil than from a warmer climate. Even though the sky actually is falling, the globe has not warmed in the last 15 years despite increased CO2 output. For the envirocultists, this is the truly inconvenient truth...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about debt or anything that complicated. Just restoring regulations THAT WE HAD YEARS AGO would help immensely
Yeah, the Government should decide how we listen to music. They sure have had some great ideas about Internet privacy. Power to the government! Sorry I couldn't resist a little snark :P
I'm unconvinced. Myself, I'd rather not have regulation that says we need to regulate the Internet like a series of tubes. How about, we all just listen/buy the stuff we like, and ignore the lame? It's not like we don't have literally millions of entertainment sources. When you involve regulation and Government you get the politicians and Big Money involved. I don't think those guys have our best interests at heart...
Want that!
>When they develop also develop the antidote or cure.
No released research = no cure.
Your move.
-- BMO
Zero Day Exploit that KILLS PEOPLE.
Your Move.
Something tells me that this wasn't designed by a teenager.
Arguably, yes it was. According to the NYT, it was designed under George Bush.
Nah, the enviro Luddites have moved beyond NIMBY, they are now BANANAs. (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
It would make a crazy sort of sense, yes? If Angry Birds was actually malware...
Or if Fox News wanted to pick a popular application that a significant portion of the human race has heard of. Nope, it must be because Fox News is STOOOPID.
I guess since they are anarchists, when they are caught we can just forget all the usual mumbo jumbo about rights and privileges shoot them on the spot?
Unfortunately they have 'eco' in their class description. Therefore normal rules of science politics. And no, you can't shoot 'em...
The only problem with that is that he's with the Tea Party, which kind of blows a hole in your argument.
How is that a problem if more engineers join the decision making process after being duly elected? Perhaps you prefer lawyers?
China is growing quickly, but it's because they have a lot of room to grow. Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.
Hear Hear!
The next round, will be played in space.
Cheers!
You complained about Fox News campaign coverage by John Prescott Ellis. I cited Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthew's Election coverage. So?
The Corporate media has numerous outlets sympathetic to the left, and really only sympathetic to the right.
Here's the question I keep asking, only to receive down mods and straw men about who is more biased offered in return: Is the country healthier of only one side of the argument is heard in the corporate media?
I'm not sure what Ted Kennedy has to do with the Wall Street Journal being accused of propaganda by the New York Times? (pot>kettle=You're all black)
/. mods seem to censor dissenting opinions to the "Fox News is Evil meme", in the name of tolerance and open mindedness I'm sure, so I'm going to stop wasting my time here on this topic.
Many
Don't forget to vote!
That doesn't prove Fox News is MORE biased, only that they are. How do you quantify which is more biased? Obviously your opinion carries more weight for you, and mine for me.
I'll see your John Prescott Ellis, Heidi Noonan, and Tony Snow, with Al Sharpton, and Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews and raise you Dave Weigel of Journolist fame, Susan Roegen, and George Stephanopoulos.
To me the issue isn't whether bias exists. It does. To me the issue is whether the United States is a better place if both political points of view and parties are held accountable by the corporate media. My answer is yes, it is. But I don't drink any particular Party's cool-aid, YMMV.
Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I love the Interwebs! But you said demonstrably more biased, then accused anyone not sharing your opinion of lying. By all means, please demonstrate how Fox is more biased than say, MSNBC. You might even convince me. I would be more receptive to your arguments, however, if you hadn't described voicing an alternate opinion as lying. Opinions can be wrong, but they can't be lies.
I suppose Fox News does look pretty right wing when compared to NBC's (and the rest of the press') handling of George Zimmerman. Or the WaPo splashing an unverifiable Mitt Romney high school story on their front page, while refusing to press for President Obama's college records. Or CBS' fake George Bush National Guard memos. And so on and so on.
Would it be better for the Country if only one political point of view was held accountable by the corporate media?
There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.
One tailored advert three times per hour is cool. 20 minutes/hour of tampon adverts fails my viewing threshold. Get smart, or get bypassed.
..get hot TSA agents?
I'll bet complaints would drop off.
The flatfile, like the flatworm, will likely survive eons of evolution...
XML FTW!
Because I know most males know the number of their line, or at least what they think it is.
So true. This behavior has deep roots in human nature. To have phallus (at it's most NSFW PG rating), is to exaggerate the number line.
Wait, so the Democratic politician who stood up to end this ridiculous program meant to move US jobs overseas is the bad guy?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you're planning to vote for Mitt Romney.
What about the Republican Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.), that co-wrote the letter? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably think the Democrats are the good guys, despite the fact that Obama nominated an RIAA shill to be solicitor general. I don't think it's Democrats vs Republicans as much as it is politicians and their friends vs us.
Hard to swim for the mobile market while chained to the enterprise PC market. Will the MS model remain profitable when the primary web access vector is appliance based?
Remember who was in charge when this happened and vote accordingly next election.
How do you freeze the market so everyone can play? Using laws written by our incredibly astute US Congress perhaps? Myself, I'd rather a small risk of someone cornering certain web markets will retard growth in that sector for awhile, over the larger risk that government regulation to fix a currently non existent problem will cause problems for all sectors of the Internet.
How are we not consumers of the web right now as we post to Slashdot? Does designing a web site or killer application, creating a blog or posting on Facebook or Pinterest make the user something other than a web consumer? The web is access to a shared communication system of unimaginable complexity balanced on a basic protocol suite designed by the ongoing collaborative engineering efforts of the IETF.
So, how, exactly, does my previous statement claim the web is a fancy TV?
But it seems to me he wants to freeze natural development of the market into something more friendly to his core business. I don't think doing so is in OUR best interest as WEB consumers.
From the Daily Mail link:
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1s2afhAhY