What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
57 Comments
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37John Mcain.. did anyone actually think for a moment this guy wasn't a total whore? Let's be real. He's been pretending to be a "republican lite" but that doesn't mean he isn't sucking at the teat of whoever gives him the most money, like most politicians.
I swear, we need to just randomly pull people out of cars at stoplights and install them into Congress. I'd bet we'd have a better government as a result. - heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36Name a monopoly that resulted in lower prices. Oh wait, there aren't any, because there's no competition and thus no incentive to lower prices.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23If you actually believe bigger is better and condone a national monopoly, how can you justify the fact that basic phone service has gone from $12/mo in the late 80s to over $30/mo now?
Why is caller ID with name $13 a month EXTRA for FREE data being sent between two phones?
Why does Bank of America get to charge people up to a $35 'overdraft fee' for a $1 coffee - because they need to 'hold' your direct deposit for a day?
What we need is TAKE BACK the telephone poles and confiscate the wiring on them - the PEOPLE own the land they are on, they should own the poles and wires too. Then we can 'lease' the use of the poles to MULTIPLE providers and see real competition. The more competition leasing means more monies to continually upgrade the antiquated COPPER lines covering the country to fiber and beyond.
Wouldn't it be nice to see the $13 BILLION a year we pay to the Universal Service Fund get used to actually upgrade the systems we use too?
While we're at it, lets refund the airspace auction monies and take the airwaves back over and LEASE them out too. Then when a company provides shoddy service to the public, they lose their lease...
WE OWN THIS COUNTRY, not the corporations.
(Sorry for the yelling.) - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Holy crap no.
This is a pretty spun article. He's eliminating BS fees to local municipalities. These municipalities do nothing to deserve these fees. The article speaks of paying for right of ways. If they want to use public rights of way, the cable companies will have to negotiate with the cities still anyway.
It will likely lead to the elimination of public access channels. But on the other hand, public access is only on cable anyway. And with cable losing out to satellite, public access is going away anyway.
Right now a cable company cannot reach across city boundaries. Not even to pick up a single subscriber. Also, new cable companies cannot enter the market without city permission. This is how we get cable monopolies.
This will allow services like point-to-point terrestrial broadband and cable over DSL to take off. It will allow cable companies to compete on price against satellite.
I don't have a problem with this bill.
Does it also eliminate bundling and go to a la carte? That'd be fantastic, but I bet he dropped it after his previous efforts failed.
I'm burying this just for the stupid Fox-style question mark. - mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"I swear, we need to just randomly pull people out of cars at stoplights and install them into Congress. I'd bet we'd have a better government as a result."
I'll drink to that. - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"WE OWN THIS COUNTRY, not the corporations."
Not according to the politicians we elect:| - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22 I would rather Ninjas kill all of our 'elected' representitives so that the pirates could eat whatever was left of them whilst pillaging.
Seriously, why can't the pirates and ninjas just get along? It's almost as bad as politics. :) - patience, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Gee. Stop bashing McCain. At least he understands the issues or tries to. Everyone else is "which lobbyist can pay me more." And the truth is: They are out to screw you out of your money. Big or small monopoly. The consumer is screwed.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10John McCain used to be a maverick. Now that he wants to be President, he's whoring himself out to his Republican Overlords, so that they he can hopefully make it through a primary. Having been tortured for 5 years in Vietnam, you'd think that he'd stand up to pro-torture Republican party. Instead, he bent over for Bush, and gave him the sole resposibility to determine what is and is not torture.
At least now he can run without having to face accusations that he's soft on terror. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't have the balls to call him soft on torture. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yea, lets model it after Jury Duty - it's your DUTY to serve.
We can pay them $6 a day too and ignore the federal minimum wage that way - imagine the money we'd save.
I'd bet things would actually get done too. - ricree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Anyone know where we can actually see the bill, or at least get a better summary? This article doesn't really tell us much about it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Seriously. The guy's a slick politician, but I consider myself a fairly-educated conservative, my friends are staunch liberals and NONE of us would vote for him.
- da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5McCain just needs to watch out not to get the jon stuwart crowd on his bad side. the sad thing is he actually seems like a really good guy and seems smart. I wish you guys had more of a system like Canadian for elections:
we have more of a system where parties are in short terms given money by government to campain with.
-there are still some personal contributions but it is highly highly regulated and the amount of money you can give is like nothing. I'm not even sure if you can directly give the party money. what you have to do is join the party and then pay your member dues which is small like 100bucks for a person and they can only pay like so many years in advance) and depending on the amount of members that in term effects how much money the party has to campain with.
Now you say this system clearly has it's faults and it does but I think by taking personal finance out of the system as much as possible really evens the system out I mean hell we still have lots of ads but it's more like a game of chess up here cause you only have so much to work with. down in the states not that you system doesn't have good points it's just too much about money and who has more.
lol sorry for the lecture I'm those one of those basterd long commenters. but seriously I would love to see the states have a more even system so people like McCain can have a chance without having to bend over backwards for financing - gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I immediately bury anything posted by OBKenobi because of this poor sourcing.
- swanny89, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7We aren't really talking about a monopoly though are we? This will nationalize internet providers, hopefully stabilizing prices and services. It could work out really well, or fail miserably. I know that other utilities like gas have been nationalized, without many problems.
- johnnythawte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are brilliant. That's a wonderful idea.
I can imagine the hordes of people driving in circles around the capital hoping for their pension plan. (not to mention the yearly salary and raises they keep giving themselves) - patience, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4McCain IS A hero. He spent time in the Hanoi Hilton and he has adopted underprivilaged kids. Plus his wife is hot.
http://www.thanksforthemusic.com/events/images2/fn0420.jpg
http://www.ronjaffe.com/images/McCains.jpg
Stop hating. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10McCain is one of few well known politicians that I'd bother voting for.
- WyllyWylly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I nominate you for president. You seem to know everything anyway, and we could use a flawless induhvidual like yourself in the driver's seat.
How about a reference on the traitor statement? I learn something new on Digg every day. - patience, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1504:
A copy is here. Its quite dense though. - dwemer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"evfen Ted ***** Kennedy is against it."
Care to back that up with a link? - just_chris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You need to get your facts straight. He ran for President in 2000, and lost in the Republican primary to Bush. Why? Because Bush painted him as too liberal! So he didn't neglect the center, he actually paid attention to them, which was his downfall. Many idiots in this country voted for Bush because of the family legacy and because McCain seemed "soft". Then in the next presidential election (Bush/Kerry), republicans had nobody else to choose from because of our somewhat flawed election system.
I was one of the people who voted for McCain in 2000, and was seriously pissed when he lost the primary to Bush. Our country would probably not be in the mess it is now if he had won. He may not be the best looking guy, or as good a public speaker as Clinton or Reagan, but at leat he has a grip on what's happening in the world and at home. - mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm glad your "rightwing" spelling is so wonderful as to demonstrate your level of education.
Is anyone else sick to death of *right* and *left* shouting matches? I know I am. As long was we are busy labeling each other we arn't going to get anything done to change these things. - atezun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I care, but then again I don't really know you and we have to be careful with those kinds of things these days.
:( - djfelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I prefer GovTrack myself:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1504
And by-the-way ... McCain didn't sponsor this bill, he was only a cosponsor. Nevada senator John Ensign (R) sponsored this bill, but that doesn't sound as shocking as Senator McCain now does it? I mean ... who the hell knows who any of the other Senators are that aren't being smeared in the media every day ... Who are they? - mwong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am wary of anything that has "senate bill" and "essentially" in the title. Instead of summing it up so that you can insert your biases why not quote the article and let the readers decide? I am not saying that the writer is not trust worthy or accurate, but I would either like to be able to make my own decisions.
- patience, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Lakawak: Yet you are posting on digg. Have you tried the Yahoo Boards. There everyone trolls and there is not even a decent discussion that takes place.
- dasunst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really find the reduction of public and education channels repulsive. Hong Kong has plenty of those, and we all have a part to play in our kids' education. Why not educate our kids where they like to hang out when they're young?
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would a national franchise lock their rates into one national price? If not, what is the point in this? Areas with more than one cable company or a telco equivalent will always get a competitive price while everyone else will get the shaft.
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and if you have no other option? Then you will either pay what they want you to or have nothing.
- scott88008, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All politicians are not whores. Some don't have as high a sense of morals.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm tempted to do the same.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uhhh, they bury cable in your neighborhoods because people in your neighborhoods want their service. It costs you nothing, you gain an optional service ability. Seems like a fair trade.
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the U.A.E., the Gov't has monopoly on telephones & internet. Service is terrible, censored & prices are very high too.
This can't be good for America! - diggeredoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1BS fees?
The community deserves a little cash when they carve up my front yard or tear up the street so they can expand their little empires.
thats like saying u can build a company on my front lawn and I dont deserve any of the profits. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Aaah, another article from OBKenobi. Lets see what traits it has:
[X] Innacurate
[] Immature name calling
[X] Left-wing partisan source
[X] Editorializing in the summary
[] Ranting on the Bush administration
[X] Abusing his network of friends to push his opinions to the main page.
[] Duplicate story
[X] Wrong Topic
Not bad. For OBKenobi, this is one of his average stories. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wy is it not surpriseg who submitte this.
LEt's see...a ***** title that has NOTHING to do with the article ? Check.
Gaming to get to the front page, and then will almost certainly get buried? Check.
Plenty of people blasting the submitted for being an ***** for submitting like this? Check.
Yup. Must be OBKenobi! - Soultakermimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If you really think a monopoly would be a good thing you are crazy. Why do you think the US is so far behind in high-speed service? Why do we pay twice as much and in some cases three times as much for service. If the infrastructure of the net lye with in the boarder of the US we should be paying less. Look at it this way. In Saudi Arabia gas is less than a dollar a gallon. The same for UAE. Yet we pay more than two. Basically since the US created it. We should pay less an other countries should pay more. In some Asian countries people are getting speeds that are three times the max you can get from a broad band provider. They are paying the same as people are paying for dial up here. So to think that a mono ply would be good.Then you might want to visit a local Walmart and just imagine there being no other choice. I'm talking a rural Walmart not a suburban one.
- spyres, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4John McCain is out for John McCain.
He doesn't care about you. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2you can say anything if you put it in the form of a question.
- sconeofstone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'd love to see 'cable service' broken up into transmission and content / service companies. The transmission company would manage and charge for the physical infrastructure connecting to your house. It would be a monopoly and would ONLY handle infrastructure, it would not be allowed to offer content / services. The content / service providers would use the infrastructure (and pay for it) and would provide programming, phone service, ISP service and anything else they wanted. They would NOT be a monopoly.
With this the infrastructure company would have motivation to continually offer more bandwidth (in order to achieve more income). It would also have to be regulated. The unregulated content / service providers would compete with each other and content would increase and prices would drop.
Of course, the chances of anyone in Congress sponsoring a bill like this is zilch. - Cam_86, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You know, the more clear it is that he will be running for president, the more i dislike him. Rather then moving MORE to the centre, like damn near EVERY republican pre-Reagan, he does the easy thing and turns into a whore for lobbyists(for the money) and goes for the core 'nascar/SUV' republican(for the votes)
Neglecting the centre and centre of left Americans is a wonderful way to piss off the other 2/3rds of the nation and make it just as bi-partisan as it is today. Sure, hes ignoring 2/3rds of the country but to get MOST of those he would need to alienate his core, and lucky for him, most of them wont even vote. Pretty damn lucky most Americans are lazy ***** who will deal with another 4 years of oppressive, socially back words leadership then get off there ass and actually spend 1 hour at a voting booth. - tonydp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2McCain is a political fraud. The so called "compromise" on the Geneva Convention actually gives GWB the power to define torture and tactics. He likes to play the crowd and his "hero" status but when it comes down to it, he's a shill not just for telecom industry, but for the Republicrat corporate state. Amazing how clever politicians can be by taking stands for the opposite of what they believe as a means of feint and slight of political hand. He should dry out in a Hopi kiva.
- werds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1in most monopolies though the price ain't the HIGHEST they can set, its set by an agreement of what fair market cost < operative word is. (yea there are exceptions blah blah). and well obviously once you get a monopoly in place there ain't really much impetus to "save" or "cut" costs since you are allowed to continue to be pretty much as inefficient as the market can bear....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Also...when I lived in Boston several years ago, I lived in an area that actually had direct competition for cable. I had my choice of two different providers. One was major company Cablevision, and the other was a small one whose name I forget.
Cablevision's packages were so much better than the small one it wasn't even close. Like twice as many channels for about $8 less at the time. And this is DIRECT competition.
So I guess you can add Cablevision to the list and make it 3. - jsmith39, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Usually there are some really good pro and con arguments on digg posts which is why I bother to read them instead of just grabbing the news headlines. Of course there are always trolls and if anything at all bad is happening anywhere on the planet some wit throws Bush under the bus for it but in general I've read/participated in some excellent debates here.
This thread is quite the exception, it was like reading a transcript of a day on a middle school playground. Come on people, let's get back to actually discussing the storyline and leave off the big willy display. - puffarthur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Most of us Republicans don't like him either. He's becoming more and more of a flip-flopping whore like Kerry.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10I would rather a national monopoly that could control the price of broadband instead of current corporate monopolies that opperate via collusion to offer us a lesser product/service at the top price that the market will bear.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4heavensbalde...I have know 3 people who have local cable companies, and ALL of them have far ***** service and HIGHER cable bills than those of us with companies like Comcast, Time WArner, etc.
So, I guess I just named two. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4No one cares about you.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
