I'd like to slap you with the dictionary until you learn what the word liberalism really means...
"9/11!! 9/11!! Everyone but me is stupid!!"
No one is buying that anymore.
"lib·er·al·ism [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "
Governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties......is somehow bad for the country?? Wouldn't slapping someone with the Constitution make them realize that this country was Liberal when it was founded, that it was framed on Liberalism, and that tolerance, acceptance, and coexistence was the goal of our founding fathers??
"As for all of you haters supporting this CEO and his comment, it doesn't make you enlightened or better than your fellow American if you bash your own."
It does however, make us more in tune with reality if we realize and can point out these simple facts.
Don't they say somewhere that accepting you have a problem is the first step to solving that problem?
So we're taking steps to improve the state of our union, while you sit back and call us 'librul eletist foolz', and somehow we're the ones in the wrong?? Please...
Not only do many Americans not pay attention to the rest of the world, but many don't even pay enough attention to what happens directly around them... And that's part of the reason we have so many idiot politicians...voters don't care to dig for information beyond what the commercials give them.
No! The guy is a total clown, and I say this as a CT resident. His commercials on TV don't tell you how much of an ass clown he is, and most residents don't go out of their way to find information on candidates. It's a pretty sad state of affairs really, but other than standing on a soap box screaming "Think of the Children" and trying to tell people he does good things on TV, he does nothing of value. Personally, I'd like to seem him fall off the face of the Earth. Professionally, I'm moving out of CT if he gets elected to the Senate.
Ugh, I guess I'm late to the comment game on this one. Anyway...
"If you're going to go on a rampage and kill people because you've lost your internet access, you've got bigger problems and issues"
I think that is part of the point of Dr. Block's report there. People have issues, some people have big issues. Most people find ways to deal with their issues, and the state of the world today gives one ample opportunity to find new ways to deal with their issues. The problem (issues that people have) then manage to stay hidden, so that you may know someone with big issues, but you can't tell because they handle them. Then when you take away one of their ways of handling these issues, you may not have any idea what exactly you've done to the poor soul, because you don't know what issues they are really dealing with deep down.
Does anyone remember Mel Gibson's character's reaction in Conspiracy Theory when he saw a copy of Catcher in the Rye? There's no doubt he'd have killed someone if they told him he couldn't buy the book. Is the book the issue, no, but in that case it's the straw that broke the camel's back...
Different industry, different monetizing opportunities... To start, it's probably more like 'paying subscribers have an opportunity to win entrance into the next sex party like in the video you're about to watch!!' Which would be the equivalent of offering free entrance into one of your concerts to a fan who gave you money for your music.
But yes, at this point, if you haven't figured all that out yet, you should stop considering it, and finally throw in the towel.
Hey Mike,
I agree that it's pretty amusing to watch all the reactions to this, and everyone claiming that Google has finally gone "Evil", but aren't they all forgetting that Verizon played a part in this 'policy framework' proposal as well? We never saw a proposal from only Google, nor one from only Verizon, so how can we jump to the conclusion that this is exactly what Google wants, instead of thinking that this is a compromise between the two? Verizon has a history of walking all over customers, and if I had to bet money, I'd say they're more against net neutrality than they are for it. Perhaps Google came to the table fighting on all kinds of things that Verizon wanted, and this was the compromise that Google felt comfortable enough with to associate itself with. If you've read their blog post about it, as I'm sure you have, they mention at the end that it's simply a proposal and they call for the real policy makers - AND the American Public - to voice their concerns and preferences to Congress. When was the last time a corporation was willing to share their views on a specific policy so openly?? Does the government even know the meaning of the word 'transparent'? (You've shown me plenty of examples that they don't...) When was the last time you got a really good idea of what was in a bill going through congress before they voted on it?? (the ______ act of ______ ?? what's that about again?)
I don't want to sound too much like a Google shill, as I am still a little bit skeptical, but the mere fact that Google published the proposal for everyone to read and criticize makes me think they aren't getting everything they want out of it either, and are hoping the public will get up in arms about it. If we let Verizon and Congress talk this out themselves, I'm all but certain that we'd never have seen anything substantial about the regulations until it was too late to do anything, and they'd have been much more in favor of the ISP's than this one is.
My theory is that Google knows exactly what it's doing, and that is preventing any ISP from buying regulations that favor them (business as usual...). To explain the lawyer speak....I can't imagine Verizon would let Google get away with a response like "Well, we didn't like this, but had to leave it in there or there was no way Verizon would have agreed to it."
All the advertising deals in the world are useless if no one trusts your company enough to visit those sites, or click those ads, or use that brand, and Google knows this, probably better than anyone in history. Couldn't it be that they're just trying to expose the evil of everyone else involved?? In order to stop something bad from happening, they have to let people know it's happening right? What do you think about that?
I feel like the faster Rupert Murdoch.........moves on to a better place, to put it nicely......the better off the world will be. I wonder if there's a special ring in hell for greedy a$$holes that abuse their power like this.
And what about when someone with morals IS the intended recipient of materials such as this, and they SHOULD be able to read the military email, and they still print it out or what have you and leak it??
There's no silver bullet for this, except better transparency from the very beginning.
The competition here isn't about making money. It's about giving the public what they want, which is information in this case. They are competing, not for a dollar, but for the attention of people all over the world.
"You're actually subsidizing a new business model where content distribution is vertically aligned to own the creative process."
I just hope that when they finally make it there, there is some kind of anti-trust, or whatever is applicable there, brought down on them to prevent that type of thing catching on, and I hope it's quick. I think a lot of people will not be fooled by it, but I think that enough people will that it would be very dangerous (a single company controlling what you watch from start to finish, yikes...).
I came to a very different conclusion than you did. I think that all that means that the "market" has decided, and what it has decided is that THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION ANYMORE. Some people like the good old fashioned TV/Couch paradigm, some like to fire up the laptop and watch their favorite shows when they're ready, and some people want whatever is the cheapest, simply because they only use it when they're bored...
Yeah, loose money is a huge problem....it should all be tightly bundled and stashed in an air-tight safe.
I kid, but seriously, it's not about any corporation becoming 'welfare'. That's a pretty outrageous jump to make to begin with, but under close examination, it's an outright lie.
For starters, to claim that a company would be LOSING money just because people could get their product from somewhere else is disingenuous. There is NO promise that they would be getting that money in the first place. Second, we aren't talking about corporations supporting anything, we're talking about not letting corporate greed trample over humanitarian and societal progress, just for the quarterly profit. To think that corporations' best interests are the same as a consumers' best interests is to be willingly ignorant or unfortunately naive.
There's still the option of a standalone DVD or Blu-ray player, and a television... Not that it really makes it any better, but I'd rather not watch DVD's than put Windows back on my computer, and I'd prefer to keep watching DVD's and keep personally boycotting Microsoft (work computer still has XP...)...
Blumenthal is a disgrace. As a CT resident, I've even emailed him in the past about his grandstanding against Craigslist, and asked him to please stop wasting my tax money on stupid political stunts. His response basically said "What I've done has worked, thanks for your concern, I'll keep up the good work. Thank you."
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Re: Re: Re:
"9/11!! 9/11!! Everyone but me is stupid!!"
No one is buying that anymore.
"lib·er·al·ism [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "
Governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties......is somehow bad for the country?? Wouldn't slapping someone with the Constitution make them realize that this country was Liberal when it was founded, that it was framed on Liberalism, and that tolerance, acceptance, and coexistence was the goal of our founding fathers??
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Re: Re: Canada...
:-P
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Re: Re: Re: What, you never noticed?
It does however, make us more in tune with reality if we realize and can point out these simple facts.
Don't they say somewhere that accepting you have a problem is the first step to solving that problem?
So we're taking steps to improve the state of our union, while you sit back and call us 'librul eletist foolz', and somehow we're the ones in the wrong?? Please...
On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed
Re: What, you never noticed?
Not only do many Americans not pay attention to the rest of the world, but many don't even pay enough attention to what happens directly around them... And that's part of the reason we have so many idiot politicians...voters don't care to dig for information beyond what the commercials give them.
On the post: Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
Re: Re: Bah...
On the post: Could Cutting People Off From The Internet Be Dangerous?
"If you're going to go on a rampage and kill people because you've lost your internet access, you've got bigger problems and issues"
I think that is part of the point of Dr. Block's report there. People have issues, some people have big issues. Most people find ways to deal with their issues, and the state of the world today gives one ample opportunity to find new ways to deal with their issues. The problem (issues that people have) then manage to stay hidden, so that you may know someone with big issues, but you can't tell because they handle them. Then when you take away one of their ways of handling these issues, you may not have any idea what exactly you've done to the poor soul, because you don't know what issues they are really dealing with deep down.
Does anyone remember Mel Gibson's character's reaction in Conspiracy Theory when he saw a copy of Catcher in the Rye? There's no doubt he'd have killed someone if they told him he couldn't buy the book. Is the book the issue, no, but in that case it's the straw that broke the camel's back...
On the post: Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]
Re:
On the post: Porn Company Embracing 'Pirates,' Planning To Monetize Experiences
Re: Really?
But yes, at this point, if you haven't figured all that out yet, you should stop considering it, and finally throw in the towel.
On the post: Google vs. Google On Wireless Net Neutrality
I agree that it's pretty amusing to watch all the reactions to this, and everyone claiming that Google has finally gone "Evil", but aren't they all forgetting that Verizon played a part in this 'policy framework' proposal as well? We never saw a proposal from only Google, nor one from only Verizon, so how can we jump to the conclusion that this is exactly what Google wants, instead of thinking that this is a compromise between the two? Verizon has a history of walking all over customers, and if I had to bet money, I'd say they're more against net neutrality than they are for it. Perhaps Google came to the table fighting on all kinds of things that Verizon wanted, and this was the compromise that Google felt comfortable enough with to associate itself with. If you've read their blog post about it, as I'm sure you have, they mention at the end that it's simply a proposal and they call for the real policy makers - AND the American Public - to voice their concerns and preferences to Congress. When was the last time a corporation was willing to share their views on a specific policy so openly?? Does the government even know the meaning of the word 'transparent'? (You've shown me plenty of examples that they don't...) When was the last time you got a really good idea of what was in a bill going through congress before they voted on it?? (the ______ act of ______ ?? what's that about again?)
I don't want to sound too much like a Google shill, as I am still a little bit skeptical, but the mere fact that Google published the proposal for everyone to read and criticize makes me think they aren't getting everything they want out of it either, and are hoping the public will get up in arms about it. If we let Verizon and Congress talk this out themselves, I'm all but certain that we'd never have seen anything substantial about the regulations until it was too late to do anything, and they'd have been much more in favor of the ISP's than this one is.
My theory is that Google knows exactly what it's doing, and that is preventing any ISP from buying regulations that favor them (business as usual...). To explain the lawyer speak....I can't imagine Verizon would let Google get away with a response like "Well, we didn't like this, but had to leave it in there or there was no way Verizon would have agreed to it."
All the advertising deals in the world are useless if no one trusts your company enough to visit those sites, or click those ads, or use that brand, and Google knows this, probably better than anyone in history. Couldn't it be that they're just trying to expose the evil of everyone else involved?? In order to stop something bad from happening, they have to let people know it's happening right? What do you think about that?
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Suing The Sky Out Of Skype
On the post: The Car That's Driven 2.8 Million Miles
Re:
On the post: How The Pentagon's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Like The RIAA's Reaction To Napster
Re: Re: Re: Encryption?
There's no silver bullet for this, except better transparency from the very beginning.
On the post: How The Pentagon's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Like The RIAA's Reaction To Napster
Re:
On the post: FT Claims Paywalls Are Morally Necessary... And Then Shows How Immoral The FT Is
Re: Re: abhorrent to charge twice?
I just hope that when they finally make it there, there is some kind of anti-trust, or whatever is applicable there, brought down on them to prevent that type of thing catching on, and I hope it's quick. I think a lot of people will not be fooled by it, but I think that enough people will that it would be very dangerous (a single company controlling what you watch from start to finish, yikes...).
On the post: Dear Jeff Zucker, Whether You Like It Or Not, Content Will Stay Free
Re:
On the post: Recognizing How Much Of The World Is A Patent Free Zone
Re: Re:
I kid, but seriously, it's not about any corporation becoming 'welfare'. That's a pretty outrageous jump to make to begin with, but under close examination, it's an outright lie.
For starters, to claim that a company would be LOSING money just because people could get their product from somewhere else is disingenuous. There is NO promise that they would be getting that money in the first place. Second, we aren't talking about corporations supporting anything, we're talking about not letting corporate greed trample over humanitarian and societal progress, just for the quarterly profit. To think that corporations' best interests are the same as a consumers' best interests is to be willingly ignorant or unfortunately naive.
On the post: Old Spice Man Gets Backed Up With A Few Numbers, Sales Up 107 Percent
On the post: So What DMCA Exemption Requests Got Rejected?
Re:
On the post: Richard Blumenthal Grandstands Over Violent Video Game Ban, While Publicly Displaying Ignorance Of Facts
Embarrassed
I'm DEFINITELY not voting his way...
On the post: Apple Needs To Offer More, Less Porn, Depending Who You Ask
Re:
Next >>