What is Digg?Sponsored by Paramount Pictures
TIME calls 'The Lovely Bones' "engrossing" & "enthralling". view!
time.com - TIME reviews Peter Jackson's new film, which is part thriller, part fantasy & part love story.
108 Comments
- xXShadowstormXx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+158It should've never existed in the first place.
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49I'll be keeping my tinfoil hat on until the story "RIAA ordered to stop suits against users" breaks
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Pass the tin foil please.
- saladtossser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40Yessss!! YES YES YES YES YESSSSS!!! #### YEAH!!!!!
- t0ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Any one else notice the "GOOGLE eyed" and google styled letters?
I hated seeing that ad on tv. I got pissed off very time.
And it is kinda scaring me that congress did something pro-people instead of pro-big-businesses. So does this mean the people matter?... - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38Are people tired of the free market lie yet? Oh well, at least the remains of it haven't been chewed up and crapped out. Liberty FTW!
- st0ney, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33Yes it should have, how are we going to unplug all those tubes.
- Aceanuu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Methinks Net Neutrality ***** should have been stuck in a BlendTec a long time ago...
- tpgraphics, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26I remember back when the debate was still heating up, I saw some anti-net neutrality commercials on tv. The way they twisted net neutrality into an evil plot just made me sick. Think about all the people that might not have heard of the fight, to have seen this. It was almost like propoganda.
- PatrickFisher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I predict that this article will hit 1000 diggs before it gets to 10 hours old.
For the people of digg, I think this is (correction... was) the least popular bill of all time! - sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21***** YOU TED STEVENS!
- venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Actually, net neutrality would be returning the Internet to the way it was until not too long ago. The FCC removed the net neutrality regulations they had in place starting in 2005 if I remember correctly. Legislation that's pro net neutrality would return things to the way they were before the FCC removed the regulations, the opposite of what this bill would have done.
- eatsushi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Thank you savetheinternet.com
I actually passed some flyers around to fellow college students, faculty, and residents and it feels great to win! - techotter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18DIGG for great justice! literally!
- saranagati, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPIYxtjLFeI
- splammo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13obligatory comment telling you that your post was lame.
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12We won this round, but these numb skulls will not stop trying to take our internet freedoms away.
They will word the bill differently and throw even more cash at the guys representing us in the Government.
Battle won... the War continues. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12How sad is it that we are all surprised that this ended the way it obviously and sensibly should have?
I honestly expected a 2 tier internet considering all the lobbying the telco's do to buy politicians. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11It's not over until the fat, tube strangling lady sings.
The telcos that is, come on you could have figured that out. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9the monopoly is the ownership of the pipes. at/t and verizon own almost all of them, and almost none of them are laid down in the same place. multiple reports have found that there is almost no competition in broadband. they might offer dsl in an area that cable is offered, but the comparisons of the packages are horrible, and they'll screw you by price because of package bundling.
- chickenselects, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9good to hear. I'm on a university campus and i was glad to see Google publish ads in the school's paper to encourage us to call our senators.
How close was this to passing? - Depthfunction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Attn: Ted Stevens:
Suck it. - JoVoCop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I thought you meant Ted Stevens
- shadomynd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+610hours 13 minutes 934diggs
Still impressive - decemberblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Sorry, no. The value of the internet is not in the pipes. It is in the content. Allowing those who own the pipes to throttle the content puts monopolists in control of what is essentially a common, public resource and, on a very fundamental level, ignores what the internet *is* -- and what made it that way.
As to the neo-liberal cry of "mine, mine, mine", my answer is simple: the telcos are allowed to exploit a natural monopoly and to enjoy very specific government protection (common carrier status) with respect to content that passes over their networks. We tolerate this monopoly and grant this protection so long as a public service is provided.
If the former want to begin playing favourites with content in the interests of their own bottom line, then (i) they ought to be made responsible for the nature of that content (i.e., no more CCS), and (ii) we also ought to dust the 'ole anti-trust book off ... again. Can't have it both ways, Jack. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6We whine because a bill equally stupid is going to be introduced into the house tomorrow. And the day after that, and the day after that. And inevitably, one of them will pass.
- fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Im guessing that would break 10,000 diggs
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm pretty glad the tubes aren't going to be clogged after all.
*victory dance* - justintsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Corporate buy-offs of legislators fails? Democracy produces favorable results for more than just lobbyists?
- pexor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is simultaneously the most retarded and enraging thread I've seen on digg and reading it feels like watching a retard try to work a calculus problem, failing, then arguing against math in general. Just stop talking, please.
- bobpaul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Stoney:
Lotto balls - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Q'PLA!!!
- observer1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Who knew that the woman from the b52's, a fairy and the guy from Tron could've saved the internet.
- SoundJudgment, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5HOORAY!!! This is indeed GREAT NEWS for ALL Internet Users! The People have spoken! Comcast and SBC... Leave the Internet ALONE! :D
- leffunov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Awesome!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Zinmojo
What free market lie? Defeating this bill protects the free market. Keeps the playing field even and prevents monopolisation of the tubes. - fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does anyone happen to know of a resource to find out which congressmen voted for and against it? It would be fantastic if we could get people to write to their congressmen and thank those of them who voted it down (and maybe send "no thanks to you, things turned out okay" to the rest).
- jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This gives me hope. I must have sent about 10 emails to John Shimkus who was one of the anti net neutrality supporters. He may have never changed his tune (to busy covering his tracks in the Foley matter I suppose), but it looks like we did some good. Just goes to show what can happen when we band together for a cause and take action, rather than just sitting on the sidelines.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Show me your support for structural separation or ***** off.
Net neutrality is needed until the scumbags from at&t that sold us all out to the nsa are hanging by their testicles form a lamppost. - jonohull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wrote them an email about that ad. They never replied.
- Xeth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's interesting that some people will still blindly argue for neo-liberalism even in this situation where regulation is obviously more beneficial to the public than not.
Laissez-faire free market economics is just as flawed as communism, its all about finding the right balance. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Freedom strikes back ---!
I guess our return to the dark ages has to wait a few more years. - Ribald_Jester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are a fear mongering idiot. This has *nothing* to do with giving the government control of the Internet.
It DOES have everything to do with exactly how large monopolistic corporations control the Internet.
NN will simply set the framework for how businesses are allowed treat packets on the network backbones. IOW - AT&T won't be able to nickle and dime competitors to death in order to push AT&T's own services. Think Vonage would survive 5 mins on the Internet if NN wasn't in place? Forget it - AT&T would simply drive them out of business. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a monopoly because there's no competition. Certain hand picked companies were given government subsidaries to expand their backbone lines so that more people would be given access to the internet. Now we're running into the problem that a) companies spent more of that money on marketting and fat CEO checks that expansion and b) There's almost always only ONE service to choose from.
That's not a free market.
Where I live, I have ONE choice for cable, ONE choice for DSL and ONE choice for satalite. I am by no means in a rural or suburban area. Doing some research on moving to Canada, I find that many places have 4-6 Cable choices and 2-5 DSL choices with pipelines that are fatter AND cost less than half as much. The day I see our prices are choices matching those is the day I'll stop bitching about the company MONOPOLIES. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -4/+7@hyperbole
net neutrality is not burning internet owner's rights. it's keeping them where they were, aka not expanding them.
and anyone who thinks this is excessive government intervention is a moron. you need regulation anywhere there is a monopoly, regardless of how the monopoly is obtained. - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2R.I.P. *****.
- Xeth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2almost like???
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They should have been careful for what they wished for.
- Boomhauer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hurray!
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@antifederalist
IF you extracted all the money the telcos have stolen from the taxpayer and imprisoned the thieves, and broke the telcos into network operating and service (structural separation) units, I would say competition could proceed. Until such time, a net neutrality law is needed. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
