Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Lets see here... (Score 1) 407

by dodongo (#29938251) Attached to: What Happened To the Bay Bridge?

The point GP was trying to make was, I think, that the negative cash flow to the federal government was approximately equal to the amount of the budget deficit for 2010. So the assertion that if there was neutral cash flow to the feds, we wouldn't have had a deficit isn't incorrect....

I think you read the larger picture properly, but I think you got your nose too far from the computer screen for the point GP was after ;)

Comment: ..but easy connection to a PC is why I HAVE cable! (Score 1) 345

by dodongo (#29243857) Attached to: An End To Unencrypted Digital Cable TV and the HTPC

You know, I try to leave the door open for benefit of the doubt. Yes, I understand Comcast believes it to be in their best interest to lock down content and ensure that they control as much of the signal chain as possible. Yes, they're probably under some pressure from content creators to ensure as much encryption as possible is used.

What I really don't understand is why they don't get that the ubiquity of equipment I can use to tune into their programming, and specifically, the ability to run that signal into my computer for my system to record the programs I want to watch is A) *increasing* not decreasing the amount of Comcast / content creators' content I'm enjoying, and B) basically the only good reason I can think of to maintain Comcast's service.

If they break my setup and insist I get one of their boxes for each TV (or PC) I want to run the A/V signal into, Comcast loses its single compelling, discriminator. IOW, for me, by making themselves as locked down as everyone else, they effectively *increase* the number of players in my marketplace, and at that point, I'll almost certainly choose a different provider as a result, or at the very least, kill my TV "service" altogether. Either way, net loss to Comcast.

Comment: Re:How does Microsoft define what is 'explicit'? (Score 1) 200

by dodongo (#28347753) Attached to: Bing Gets Porn Domain To Filter Explicit Content

That would be an interesting job. Microsoft Smut Engineer.

Heh. I've actually done this; not for Microsoft, but another search company (for a _real_ search company, one might say to get in a cheap shot ;)

It's actually not nearly as much fun as it sounds. At some point, your soul just feels dirty -- it's not just porn; depending on the strength of the filter, you could also be looking for drugs, innuendo (OK, I really like the innuendo...), hate sites, etc. Hate sites are the worst.

While blocking the domain really does sound like a nice feature for anyone running a network they want to lock down, this of course doesn't block the explicit content from any other search engine. And it's relying on dolts like me (only they work for Microsoft) to make it happen. I hope they have a lot of dolts. There's a damn lot of explicit stuff out there!

Comment: Re:And next up (Score 1) 467

by dodongo (#27465829) Attached to: Believing In Medical Treatments That Don't Work

Or (for anyone who's recently seen the people in the emergency room) illegal immigrants who are an even more universal drain on services.

Though I don't care for the tone of your comment, I will grant you that if they weren't performing the dangerous, uncomfortable or just downright shitty jobs that no American citizen wants to take, they'd be spending less time in the ER. True.

Comment: Re:Still have to Operate within the system. (Score 1) 467

by dodongo (#27465781) Attached to: Believing In Medical Treatments That Don't Work

Yes, because that's exactly what any rational person would do when they have a screaming child with a broken arm. Jesus Christ... I hope GP fought the hell out of the charges. I did for my treatment and managed to receive just treatment. After a year of haggling, yelling, stressing, and tracking down points of contact. Good times.

Comment: Re:To Flamebait: (Score 1) 175

by dodongo (#27021371) Attached to: Cable Companies Want Bigger Share of Online TV Market

You say: "Since Limbaugh airs from 3-6 on the west coast, 6-9 would have to be given to the liberal show in the same area."

Actually, can you point me to where you find the requirement that any Fairness Doctrine type directive requires strict adjacency in programming? And if so, why does that adjacency requirement not consider average cume listener by daypart? Because any program in the 3-6 slot is gonna outperform the 6-9 slot unless the PMD show totally sucks. It's just a fact of life in radio.

You say: "Suppose that the advertising on the 6-9 slot now sells for $750k/week, and the Limbaugh show goes for $1M/week."

No, let's not suppose, because that's crazy. Evening shift spots sell for well under 75% of the cost of PMD spots, at least in my experience. Moreover, I'd love to know where you're broadcasting from that pulls down a million a week in PMD.

THEN you say: "Given that the liberal show is only about 10% as popular, we'll assume that advertising would go for $100k/week."

Well, it ain't being helped by the fact it's not in PMD while Limbaugh is. But why are you prorating rates already prorated based on the decreased number of impressions between PMD and evening?

You say: "Therefore, in order to keep the Limbaugh show, it would cost the station $650k/week, effectively lowering the returns on the Limbaugh show to just just $350k/week because of the unpopular liberal show."

Based on your entirely fabricated, unsupported numbers you're throwing out there to pretend you have empirical evidence to support your view of how you imagine things will go when you don't even have, you know, a piece of policy to point to that shows anyone is going to enact your fictitious doomsday scenario.

And then, after making up a bunch of shit, you say: "Your argument isn't well thought out. The Fairness Doctrine is all about silencing conservative speech on the radio."

Hmf. Get back to me on that, OK?

Comment: Re:To Flamebait: (Score 1) 175

by dodongo (#27021199) Attached to: Cable Companies Want Bigger Share of Online TV Market

Quite simply, you're wrong. If Rush airs three hours / day that leaves 21 hours of void that has to be filled. If the stations are forced to put some liberal bloviator on the air for 3 hours to clear the air of Limbaugh's flatulence, then that still leaves eighteen hours.

Morning and afternoon drive dayparts in radio are 4 hours each (6a-10a, 3p-7p) and even if you include the five hours of non-prime midday airtime in between, you're still looking at a 13 hour window, not even half of which is filled up with Limbaugh + Anti Limbaugh.

So don't make this about the Democrats wanting people to cut back on Rush Limbaugh. We both know he'll be the last one to go. This has nothing to do with Rush and much more to do with the floozy hacks who get hired to fill in around Rush Limbaugh's corpulence. Like Sean Hannity :)

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright

Working...