Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Lies and Damn Lies (Score -1) 720

by Rogain (#24612151) Attached to: 30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging

I think democrats tend to look at things like the swiftboat lies and other organized rumor mongering as what they'd like to have balanced.

I think broadcasters should have a fairness doctrine, to keep shams like Fox News from being so insanely one-sided. I think there is no reason why a moron like Shawn Hannity shouldn't have a show and his show should be as shitty and biased as he wants to make it, but Fox shouldn't be allowed to have one Hannity after another all day long.

MSNBC has a slew of center-right douchebags, but only one Keith Olberman, that's not balanced either. That traitor to our nation Lawernce Cudlow is blasted over the airwaves spewing lies and distortions to foster his Anti-American (That's American as in a person, the people whos jobs people like him send to slave-wage countries, not the scumbags who own and run our country).

I would like major media internet sites to also have a fairness doctrine, but how do you enforce that? How do you find out which sites are major media and which aren't? I would never want individual people and their websites to be subject to anykind of a fairness doctrine.

Traffic analysis could identify massive sites, then these sites could be checked out. Something like how a hair-dresser has to have training and a license not a FBI/SWAT/IRS teams showing up for a raid with guns and body armor. I think a site with millions of hits a day should have at least as much regulatory hassle as a hairdressing shop.

Republicans like less government because it makes rich people more powerful. It makes countries less democratic. According to conservatives Afghanistan should have been a paradise under the taliban and their mujahdeen predacessors. There was no government at all, guns and money were the only power. Suprise, surprise when they started machine gunning women in soccerfields.

Networking

+ - Justice dept. says no to net neutrality

Submitted by Maximum Prophet
Maximum Prophet (716608) writes ""The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625194/

Is anyone surprised? The anti-net neutrality people sound good, but the powers to be aren't going to allow just anyone to dig up the streets to lay new cable for last mile access, so there is never going to be real compitition for internet access. Without real competition, there's no free market, so "The Market" can't decide.

The FCC needs to realize that if consumers had a choice among many providers, almost no one would choose a provider that restricted their access. (unless that provider had a cost near zero, like broadcast TV)"
The Courts

+ - Court decision may invalidate OSS licensing->

Submitted by
athloi
athloi writes "Jacobsen argued for the copyright claim, essentially, was that Katzer and Kamind violated copyrights on JMRI Project decoder definition files by reproducing and redistributing versions of the software without including the attribution required by the open source license utilized. The court held that Jacobsen had implicitly promised not to sue for copyright infringement by distributing the source code under a nonexclusive license. The license was subject to certain conditions — which the defendants may have violated — but any transgression was a breach of contract, not a copyright violation, according to the court. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_sourc e_railroad/"
Link to Original Source

A modem is a baudy house.

Working...