well... let's see what happens at the end of summer... before we you know... talk about it as if it is already past.

If I had mod points...

I actually lived in a new apartment building for a while. I moved in on the first day it was available to move in. They actually wired the apartments specifically for internet. Fiber to each apartment, nice switch panel that allowed a router in one room to provide internet to the entire apt etc. It was pretty nice. I moved... mostly because it was in New Jersey and living in Manhattan is so much cooler.

I think the people they hire to run the phone lines are paid for minutes on the phone.

Just to throw a couple contrary examples out there

I heard on a radio interview with someone from Blink-182 that they originally thought "Adam's Song" was a bad song and were surprised it ended up being a #2 on the US Modern Rock Charts. In an environment were you only get to release "hits" it probably wouldn't have been released.

I personally like every song on "Let it Ride" by Mighty Mighty Bosstones, my favorite song on that disk is also not even one that got a video or I have ever heard played in another other place.

Not every non-hit song is crap. And variety is good. Even if you don't love every song on a disk by an artist you like, you probably do like one or two that never would have made it onto the radio. I'm kindof sad the venue to try out songs you aren't as comfortable with is sortof going away. I feel like I'm going to miss out on alot of music I might have enjoyed.

If a musician is not more beneficial to society than a plumber or bus driver then we don't. However if society does highly value them then it should be possible.

I can't tell if you're arguing against or in favor of his point. Your tone is against, but if the only music you have available is locally produced you would have a vastly LESS diverse pool of music to listen to. Where you are and what you experience has a lot of relevance to the whatever you produce. If everyone produced only locally and locally is all that is available then all of it will be similar.

In another example... northern climes don't produce pineapples very well. And I love me some pineapple. Southern drawl in music is pretty exclusively grown in the south... but has an awesome sound to it that I as someone living in the north can really appreciate. I'd be kindof sad to miss out on it.

What corporation funds research, publishes papers, and DOESN'T patent the results? That's kindof the point... businesses don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

2 characters, but who bothers to count past 5 anyway?

I think it completely depends on which browser you started coding against. If you do your main testing against IE it might look wrong in Firefox until you work out the differences. If you started in Firefox IE will look weird.

There's are thousands of people deprived of human rights every day in the United States. We call them "prisoners". I agree there are some view points that should be scientifically provable. But they might be less common than you might think.

would have been funny without the pretext

I completely agree that they did a very good job of impartially covering a lot of stories. And have always considered them a very respected paper. I'm sad to hear that post Murdoch the bias has entered parts that previously were unbiased. Unbiased journalism is very hard to obtain.

WSJ has favored the republicans for a long time. I was forced to use only articles from the wall street journal for a paper I had to do to compare contrast the candidates in the 1996 election of Bob Dole vs Clinton. Dole got TONS of coverage in the journal and Clinton next to nothing. Even though Dole's basic stance on any question was something along the lines of "I'm not Clinton." I remember one particular article late in the election when the WSJ had pretty much given up where Bob Dole was asked by a student about his stance on some issue and his reply was something like: That's a great question. Let's talk about why Clinton would do a bad job working on it. Basically dodging the entire question. But Clinton didn't have any articles in that paper at all that week.

Unless you're trying to say this subversion which you're making sound recent is more than 2 decades old some 11 years before Murdoch took it over. On financial things and world news they usually tried to stay impartial. On political news... forget it they were always biased to republicans.

I love opportunistic humor :)