If you don't like the FCC regulations, write your congressperson, get them changed. Yup -- and if they won't, run for their office yourself. ========= Regulators are 'appointed'..not 'elected'. So...it would be more accurate to say: Pay off the party in power..and hope for the best.

Thats called a bill of attainder. And its unconstitutional. Just sayin...

You make TWO valid points..or rather descriptions.

And I can personally identify both.
Rational economics: Me
I do my homework, research etc before committing to a purchase. This includes actual 'need' of said item and how it compares to other offerings, cost/benefits et al.

Irrational economics: My g'friend.
Oh! Thats cute! SOLD!

So..while your post are valid, there exists 'both'.
Both the rational..and the not-so-rational.

Then..quite frankly..I wouldnt want to work where you work... Why? Because I'm interested in the bottom line....not hippy crap.

Forget about the 'language'.
The hippy 'green', 'progressive' shit isnt gonna work.
(Well..progressive shit never works anyway).

But as far as power consumption goes...do it in BUSINESS TERMS.
Begin with..."This will save us money".
Its as simple as that.

When I consolidated a bunch of remotely accessed PC's into a VM environment, I didnt present 'hippy crap'. I submitted a spreadsheet that laid out the power consumption numbers, cost of equipment, licensing etc. It was pretty comprehensive. Even included 'pretty graphs' for the higher ups.

They listened. I built it.

Lesson:
If all your gonna do is 'be enlightened' and sing of unicorns, rainbows and greenie-weenie garbage, you should just quit your job and live in a commune.

In the real world, you'll achieve much more with a complete idea/plan rather than leg humping algore.

"using them to provide services to all of us, rather than raising income taxes."
========

You must be new...to the US.

===========

You know, with a couple minutes of reading you too might be able to figure out that "trying to criminalize citizen journalism" is not the same thing as preventing the courts from getting random citizens to disclose their sources when they've spewed it as fact all over the internet.

Overreact much?
===========

Nice try...

I'll put forth that the proposed law I cited VERY MUCH LIMITS JOURNALISM IN THE US.

Yet its seems your all for it. Afterall, you dont address the law I cited. You just obfuscate with with what you believe are 'misplaced points regarding the thread'.
Again. I say its VERY relevant.

Yup...it got modded down...
As 'off topic' no less.. Nevermind that it has to do with a potential US law on journalists.

No surprise there...

The QOTD's should include:
A reality check on liberals has no place on slashdot.

=======
They actually have a lot in common with certain conservative religious groups here in the US. Bob forbid those retards ever get their hands on the levers of power. We'd have bloggers on death row within the year.
=======

Please cite?
Errr..didnt think so...

Nice try.
Can you say PROJECTION?

Come to think of it... Seems the liberal side is all about that

Democrats trying to criminalize citizen journalism
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
12/03/09 5:10 PM EST

An amendment to a bill currently being considered by the Senate would deny ordinary citizens doing vital investigations in the public interest the same legal protections as professional journalists. If it were to become law, the change could significantly stifle important citizen journalism efforts similar to the recent ACORN expose.

The Senate is currently considering a new press shield law sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The bill would "maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media." Except that Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Cal., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., want to ensure that any new journalistic protections would only apply to professional journalists and not regular citizens. An amendment filed by Durbin and Feinstein would modify the legislation to define journalists thusly:

AMENDMENTS intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. DURBIN)

Viz:

In section 10(2)(A), strike clause (iii) and insert the following:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity--

(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, 1or other means; and

(II) that--

(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;

(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;

(cc) operates a programming service; or

(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

In section 10(2)(B), strike ''and'' at the end.

In section 10(2)(C), strike the period at the end and insert ''; and''.

In section 10(2), add at the end the following:

(D) does not include an individual who gathers or disseminates the protected information sought to be compelled anonymously or under a pseudonym.

While the ACORN story has stung congressional Democrats and pointed out the deficiencies of the mainstream media, there's no basis for Durbin and Feinstein's amendment that seems anything other than vindictive or an attempt to protect the powerful. It's telling that bloggers on both the left and the right are in total agreement this is very bad law.

Reality is a bitch huh?
And we can't have THAT when sadly attempting to bash conservatives now can we?
MOD ME DOWN!!!!

Didn't the Simpson's already do this?