What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Meeting Women Online "On The Cheap" view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s some killer free ways to stand out from the crowd if you're online looking for a lovely lady...
84 Comments
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21heh i wouldnt get your hopes up too high. I know alot, I mean A LOT of people my age who are retards on the computer. Why do you think spyware is so prevelant?
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20You know another country that places the economy over personal freedom? China.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17It became a partisan issue when the lobbyists paid whoever was in control of the house an executive branch. It just happens to be republicans now.
- Mooinakan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18But the whole concept of the Internet (not DARPANET) was to release a public means of communication. Not so that some ***** companies could hold it hostage and potentially control it how they see fit.
Also, I'll have you know that the same 'democrats who need to stop blocking everything' are the ones who, before Bush's reign of 'terror', brought the country to a surplus for the first time in many, many years. Guess what ol' George Bush did? Yep, biggest deficit in history. - Pancake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Companies shoudlo be able to do anything they want."
-Stylerm
I dont think that is too good of an idea. Big example: Enron doing what they wanted. I lost a lot of money because of them, countless people lost their jobs, and while they were in the middle of the scandal, prices for electricty skyrocketed in California (anyone remember rolling blackouts??) If companies are strong and robust, awesome... but as soon as they start using their power to "do what they want" without following any guidelines (i.e. laws), the consumer will get hurt. - ewhac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Okay, people, this is really, really fscking simple.
If you are going to grant preferential treatment to certain packets, that means you are opening the packets and exercising editorial control over the contents. Please do not argue against this point, as you will be wrong and simply annoy the adults. To establish the tiered Internet that the RBOCs/ILECs are agitating for, you need to open the packet, look at the contents (where it came from, where it's going, what it contains, etc.) and make a value judgement based on what you find (higher priority, lower priority, drop it, etc.). That is functionally identical to making an editorial decision (above the fold, below the fold, shoved off to the Lifestyle section, etc.)
Now listen closely: The moment you start making editorial decisions about what passes through your network, you abandon your privileged status of Common Carrier.
So. Unless AT&T/SBC/BellSouth/Qwest et al want to assume full civil -- and criminal -- liability for every phone call, every TCP stream, every packet that passes over their wires, they need to SHUT UP NOW, and never bring up this issue again.
They are Common Carriers. They don't get to do this, period. Next topic, please...
Schwab - zeebo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I know what you're talking about. I've been so successful over the years I have no competitors left and I can force people to pay whatever price I want, and I crush anyone who might interfere with my control. Isn't that great for capitalism? I just don't understand why the US won't let me hire 8 year olds here for $1 an hour like I can in china, it costs too much to pay minimum wage, and adults hands are too big! Not to mention all those pesky environmental concerns. Who cares if I dump mercury in the water supply?
Uh oh. Looks like its time to kill some workers to teach a lesson again. Oh well, its all good for business! - KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Thats one reason Ill be glad when our generation, who grew up with and understands this "technical mumbo-jumbo" starts taking office.
- khyron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They're politicians. There's a lot to keep track of (lobbyist pressure, internal politics, hiding from constituents) without learning this technical mumbo-jumbo. Assuming that they're not just reading what was handed them, the ones who do "get it" are happy to simplify it into something their colleagues will actually pay attention to.
Likewise, journalists could do a lot worse than making it a partisan issue. Most congresscritters don't care one way or the other about this; but if you make it into "Our Party's Cause" they start caring. - wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12No, that little blue link under your name, that is spam.
- zeebo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Because theres already tiered service from telcos. When I have to chose between $20 a month for 56k, $30 a month for 256k, and $40 a month for 512k, thats called tiered pricing. Similarly Google pays a set ammount of money for the bandwidth it uses.
What the Telcos want to do is packet shaping and throttling of competing services. Which is something completely different. - Jovan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is a serious question for Americans, I am not implying anything against you or your ways of life, I simply want to know a few things and comment as an outsider:
Why don't you fight back?
Although these may be the people you might have voted for (really, I doubt the politicians there understands the importance of having The Internet untiered) the sole purpose is money and as long as they have a swelled up income of it, they aren't going to stop. Now, you can argue that thats the problem with democracy and capitalism, and that's fair, but lets go back to the old cliche founding fathers history lesson.
Your so called "Founding Fathers", created such a thing known as the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately such a thing could not have been accomplished without the average person, the average soldier. Given what a bloody mess the American Revolution was, I can only conclude one thing: You don't have the will to stand up for yourselves, because you simply don't care. You can bitch all you want but it won't change anything.
What are you afraid of? Being jailed, killed? Back then, that was the price of freedom, and unless you show these asinine politicians that the "people" are the ones who decide, you won't get anywhere. Do you know the history of your country? Do you remember the Gettysburg Address, spoken by none other than Abraham Lincoln? I distinctly remember a little excerpt that talked about how a new nation shall rise, governed only "For the people, by the people".
I hope you've already clued in that I am not from the US, (I am European but I am residing in Canada), and as a citizen of a neighbouring country I can either sit back and laugh like the majority of others (A lot of people I know detest the US, why? Why, go figure!), or actually try to understand as to why you aren't taking action -- because sitting behind a computer bitching on Digg and writing column articles about it doesn't seem like much.
I am not French or anything, but your country goes to war, France doesn't, you start rebelling against them and do idiotic things like calling french fries "freedom fries". Yet, here you are, having a battle over your own freedoms, unwilling to do a goddamn thing about it and bashing yourselves. I mean, if you aren't going to go outside and protest either peacefully or by violence, then don't bother complaining. You don't like it? Take Action. You won't? Quit bitching. Oh, and one last thing about the whole French-American issue -- your Statue of Liberty is a gift from France. Hope you enjoyed a little history lesson there.
In my own selfish, biased opinion, the question comes down to this: If you know your freedoms are being taken away, what else do you have to lose? - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6ya, we should let AT&T regulate the internet instead. what could possibly go wrong?
- drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It really shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. But the ol' left-right paradigm seems to divide and conquer the people to infighting that teh crooks can run off with the cash. Its easier to steal in chaos. If people woke up and stopped fighting with people who have basically the same wants and needs then maybe one day, but this won't happen. Its all just a grande stage and most sheep play along. We woudl be better off if we just ALL woudl be very against whoever is in power, keep them in chebk.
- tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No, you'll get politicians who *think* that they understand technology, which is probably more dangerous. A lot of politicians now are ignorant and at least have some awareness that they're ignorant; the kids growing up today think they're network technicians because they can make a MySpace profile and download movies through BitTorrent. The ones who know what's going on likely won't be the ones running for Congress, just like how it is now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8because google and myspace ALREADY pay for a tiered system, they have the to pay for various speeds and bandwidth. pay more get higher bandwidth.
and don't attempt to tell me they aren't paying the full costs of delievering their service, do you have ANY idea how ***** much googles operation would cost to run just in data pipes alone.
telco's charge each other to connect between them as well, and this cost is passed on to the end users. a tiered internet amounts to double dipping.
lastly i congratulate you on a well thought out troll - bash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The story is on this little known thing called the "internet". Maybe you don't know, but Digg is part of the internet.
Don't worry, a lot of people miss this point. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4what are you talking about? do you even know what net neutrality is? there is nothing about taking someone elses property. there is nothing about government. this is about agreeing to cooperate. you piss me off for listening to who ever you listen too. educate yourself instead of indoctrinating yourself. geez.
- CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IRONY ALERT: Neutrality foisters partisanism.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Democrats/Liberals are more for the people in general - social security, medicare, social programs in general.
Republicans are more focused on money/business - tax cuts for the rich, lax business regulations, etc."
Stated with less of a bias:
Demcrats are more socialist, i.e. they believe in govt. run social programs such as social security, medicare, etc. where the amount you pay in is not very correlated with what you get out of it. They also believe in a tax system in which the wealthy are taxed at a much higher rate than the average person. So when you say tax cuts for the rich, you are really saying bringing things back to a more even tax system. If you don't believe me, just ask yourself which party is more likely to support a flat tax system. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>It's partisan by nature.
i can't beleive i'm hearing this crap. you really don't know what you are talking about. if AT&T owns the a part of the backbone and i pay att for a conncection then they pass my packets because i pay them. if i pay them then they have no right to edit what gets to my system. if they go out of business or someone buys them or they decide not to play... fine. don't play TCP/IP will work around you. but don't expect me to send packets to you if you aren't playing. this couldn't be simplier. and no part of it governement UNTIL the governement steps in and releives these companies of their obligation to pass other people packets.
im small and don't pass much to att. i garantee they send alot more to me in the form of spam and other crap. by your measure they should pay me for my bandwidth. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> stylerm wrote: "Democrats need to stop blocking everything"
You realize, don't you, that the Democrats can't really "block" much of anything. For better or worse, the GOP controls every aspect of our (U.S.) federal government. This means that with few exceptions pretty much all the credit for the good stuff should go to the Republicans. But by the same token pretty much all the blame for the bad stuff must likewise go to the Republicans. - wastrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3(IANAL, so may be talking out my ass.)
It's a good point but it's a legal argument and can be addressed by whatever legislation Congress passes.
It's also a bit of a fiddly philosophical position and can be argued differently. After all, routers already examine packets to look at the destination address or the number of hops, etc. and make decisions about whether and where to send them, so there's precedent for this type of "editorial" control. - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Companies should be able to do anything they want."
-Stylerm
Remember when railroads completely controlled peoples lives in the old west? People lived in shanty towns worked in crappy conditions and the were routinely bullied and exploited? they were at the complete mercy of the company. It's a form of tyranny. It's good for the fat cat on top, but bad for the masses and the environment. I know you're parroting corporate propaganda, but you should really reconsider what you're saying. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i still don't think this has hit the front page enough.
people on the whole are apathetic about this issue as they don't see how it will affect them... but it would be history altering stuff were it to happen... - wetplant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Let's stop whining about these issues and band together and do something. The Internet gives us the power to aggregate our thoughts. Why not aggregate our thoughts together and turn them into written laws. If enough of the 2/3 of the population hooked up to the Internet work on these laws and there is some Digg like voting system attached, we can start making a difference.
Submit Law. Vote on Law. If enough people vote, then the politicians will take notice because they need to be re-elected. Blogging is not enough. Its time to take the next step through collaboration--turn our thoughts and rants into legislation and pressure those dirt-bags in Washington.
Let the people be the special interest group again, not some lobbyist group filled with douches who you probably would have wanted to punch in the face in High School. - sbostedor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Welcome to the world of politics
- flaxx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4anyone can have a link attached to their signature if they want. That is not spam, you over-sensitive dummy.
- wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Help us bury spam ^ ^ ^ ^
- SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3stylerm:
> democrats keep blocking free trade.
That's because a US with no tarriffs, no subsidizing, and no borders is a US whose quality of life will drop to equal that of it's partners.
Farmers and fishermen will go out of business because it will cost more to raise crops than you can sell them for.
Factories will close because unions do not exist in other countries, meaning they don't have to pay for insurance, pay fair wages, maintain safe workplaces, obey child labor laws, or pay overtime.
So the only remaining jobs will be services. A services-based economy does not promote economic growth.
US corporations will remain rich simply because they own everything in foreign countries. The middle class will disappear, US buying power will decline, and the US will become a nation of poor peasants with a handful of rich property owners.
stylerm:
>Companies shoudlo be able to do anything they want. Its good for the economy. Democrats need to stop blocking everything
No, it's terrible for the economy (Standard Oil? Microsoft? Enron?). It's good for the wealthy. The wealthy already have enough money. They have no reason to need more. Aquisition of wealth is not an endless goal. If you have $10 million, you don't need $100 million. - luxveritas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jovan, you clearly are deeply concerned about internet neutrality in the United States. Thanks for your concern! I also think that maintaining net neutrality is very desirable. You also state that you are currently residing in Canada. Hence, you may be very interested in two powerful examples that appear at the savetheinternet.com website concerning violations of net neutrality in Canada:
1) In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
2) Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service.
As a Canadian resident do these examples concern you? You use very strong rhetoric when addressing Americans. For example, you ask "Why don't you fight back?" "What are you afraid of? Being jailed, killed?" These are reasonable questions. Do you think that they might apply to yourself and other residents in Canada?
Have you looked into the net neutrality situation in your home country in Europe? Some European countries have very powerful communications companies that might be tempted to violate net neutrality. Finally, thanks for your intriguing comments on the principles and ideals active in American history. Let us hope that the best principles can be applied in many countries. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2there is no confusion. there is no complication. the internet is what it is because i agree to pass your packets and you pass mine. i pay for my bandwidth you pay for yours...
whats to complicate.
if they ***** up. we'll run a wireless mess and i can hit the next town with a line of sight connection. ***** them. it won't be as good but it will ours because we'll all be connected to our neighbors.
these companies that want to own and control everything were the last to get on board. it was the little person witht he special interest that made the internet. that was made possible by net neutrality. we all pay our way. they just want the little guy to pay more of their share. ***** them.
there is no confusion. we'll leave the suits that want to make it all about their profit... see if they can sell something if nobody stops by. - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Geekee, it's interesting that you classify Democrats as "more socialist" (not that socialism is a bad thing in my view). The US economy relies on a massive amount of government intervention through the Pentagon. "Defense" companies like Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, portions of Boeing rely completely on subsidy. That's government allocation of taxpayer money. That's a centrally planned economy frequently associated with Socialism. Technological developments such as microprocessors, lasers, were developed with taxpayer money and transferred to corporations for private profit. It's understood that these companies wouldn't last 2 minutes in a market economy, so to continue technological innovation the politicians pour more and more money into the military. Something like 70% of all scientific research is funded this way. It's understood that unregulated markets or "free markets" are too unstable. The CEO of General Motors just after World War 2 stated and understood that our economy would slip back into the depression without a permanent war economy.
Which party is constantly proposing more defense spending? Obviously the Republicans. There's always some "threat" that needs to be fought against.
There is another way to improve the economy. You invest in the social programs Democrats sometimes champion. instead of investing in high tech weaponry that is transferred to a number of civilian uses you invest in the infrastructure of the United States. You keep the money here in schools, libraries, hospitals, health care, social security, etc. instead of dropping it in the form of a bomb on some poor sap in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Sudan, Nicaragua, Vietnam, or whatever. You invest in the masses and let the wealth build up. You don't blow it up in a perpetual paranoid cycle trying to control everything. Is that really such a stretch? - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> Thats one reason Ill be glad when our generation, who grew up with and understands this "technical mumbo-jumbo" starts taking office.
But by that time, there'll be a whole new heap of "technical mumbo-jumbo" that we won't understand but our kids will.
The problem isn't that the politicians are out of touch, the problem is that voters don't put them under pressure to be any different. And that is a problem that I only expect to get worse. - drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You mean the founding fathers would allow comanies like AT&T that are cooperating with governement cencorship to be allowed to look into all your internet packets? Man the right wing sure just serve up the kool-aid. This is about a fair free market competition. Keeping things the way it is, conserving them for what has worked. Thomas Jefferson would allow no government brownshirt company like AT&T to peer into his data.
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like to pretend to be a republican online. Its funny coming up was off the wall crazy ideas, and people believe you because fundamentalist republicans have become the norm.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So this is how it works:
January-June they pass legislation to get big corps to give them campaign money.
June-November they use that money to put up TV ads denying they passed that legislation. - luxveritas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jovan said: “I read a few days ago about the installment of metal detectors in US high schools (if I am not mistaken). If it were to happen to my school, I would seek out who authorized such an invasion of privacy and punch them in the face in public. It is a violent means, yes, but it's still a means to an end -- and freedom is very important to me.”
You certainly have strong feelings about metal detectors and freedom. However, you probably do not have to travel to the U.S. to punch someone in the face. You can go to a major airport in Canada and it will have metal detectors and X-ray machines that will be used to violate your privacy by scanning you and your luggage. Also, if you return to visit your home country in Europe you may be faced with metal detectors and X-ray machines. You could punch some official at the airport but I do not recommend it.
You state that you are a subscriber to Shaw in Canada and yet savetheinternet.com says that Shaw is violating net neutrality by charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service. You call on Americans to “fight back” against those that might violate net neutrality. Luckily, you do not have to travel to the U.S. to do your part. You could punch the executive at Shaw that decided to violate net neutrality, but I do not recommend it.
Jovan said: “I still can't believe that these ***** allow BOOKS to be banned. Some parents phone in, bitch to the minister of education, schools' principals, and next thing you know we're being censored from some book that really isn't all that "harmful" to children.”
Good point! You can visit the Canadian website www.freedomtoread.ca. It states that “Books are removed from the shelves in Canadian libraries, schools and bookstores every day.” You could punch a school librarian in Canada but I do not recommend it.
Also, you might want to investigate the situation in your European homeland with respect to all these issues. You might discover some problems that you could help to rectify. You could do some great things by following a path of non-violence! - rv8ch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"if they ***** up. we'll run a wireless mess and i can hit the next town with a line of sight connection. ***** them. it won't be as good but it will ours because we'll all be connected to our neighbors." -starmanjones
True, but these slime balls are already working on legislation to prevent these kinds of wireless networks. They know no bounds. This is not a partisan issue, it's all about corporations vs. the people, and getting the money out of politics. As they say, money talks, and B.S. walks. The big companies have the money, and they are investing it in buying politicians.
Look at Microsoft. What do you think happened to them in the 90s? I'm not an MS fan, but they just didn't play the politics game, and when politicians came knocking for their "protection money", MS said no. Well, the politicians taught MS a lesson, and now MS is all over DC with their cash, buying "protection". That's how the game works, and "we the sheeple" just keep licking it up.
The whole "Republican vs. Democrat" thing is a joke. Those guys are almost identical in every way that is important. They all do exactly what their corporate masters want, and the instant they don't, they get thrown out of office. The current topic is all about telcos, who invest *a lot* of money buying politicians, and they are going to get whatever they want, even if it kills the Internet, and kills American competitiveness, and "we the sheeple" are just going to keep on takin' it. - GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's an election year. Enough said.
- gramercie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We all know that Net Neutrality is a fundamental principle of the Internet, even according to republican Michael Powell (Former FCC chair). The issue is whether this "vote" any precendential/legal effect. The answer is a resounding no!
The vote on the "Barton bill" has no legal effect because it was never introduced into the house or congress. There is No bill number or official name. The vote happened but I think it was a litmus test on how legislative members would vote on things like this.
The vote might just have been a vote on Barton's popularity. As far as we're concerned, net neutrality is still a fundamental principle of the net! - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People seem confused that the main submitter is arging against net neutrality. Incorrect - he wants to stop a tiered internet as much as anyone. The question is how to stop this. The current bill may not be perfect, but the counterargument being proposed that was defeated would have been to give MORE power to the FCC. You might remember the FCC from such crazy antics as the Broadcast Flag - we don't have that yet because it was decided the FCC DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH POWER to mandate it be used. Who now thinks giving the FCC more power is a shortsighted solution to the problem?
If you absolutley think the government should regulate something, at least propose to do so in a way that doesn't empore the more consumer unfriendly branches of government. - joelnewcomer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2drizek- This isn't an issue of economy vs. personal freedom....it is an issue of one person's freedom vs. another person's freedom.
I also believe that in the long run our government will do what it needs to do to protect the people from monopolies...it has done it in the past and it will do it in the future...that is the beauty of a government by the people....as it has already been mentioned, when it comes time to vote, the politicians will listen to the people...I don't believe this is a partisan issue...I think you would be hard-up to find anyone—Democrat, Republican, or Martian—who wants to be limited as to what they can access on the internet. - directorblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The current state of affairs _is_ net neutrality.
What the telcos and cable companies have spent tens of millions of dollars on (the best Congress money can buy?) is to change the landscape from the current state of FCC-enforced neutrality to no neutrality. That's what the new COPE bill is all about... changing the definition of what a common-carrier is permitted to do.
What the carriers really appear ready to do is implement three tiers of service:
1) Those content-providers (say, Google) who won't pay extra tarriffs will run super-slow or, perhaps, won't run at all
2) Content-providers (say, Yahoo) who decide to pay the packet-protection money will run with some quality-of-service (QoS) guaranteed
3) Applications created by the carriers ("AT&T's SuperSearch!"), which will be designed to take market-share from established apps (Google, Yahoo) that they feel they can cherry-pick... one at a time.
Read more here: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html and get over to: http://www.savetheinternet.com - make your voice heard. Before it's too late. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not the same thing. You control your router and can open it up or close it as much as you want.
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ So. Unless AT&T/SBC/BellSouth/Qwest et al want to assume full civil -- and criminal -- liability for every phone call, every TCP stream, every packet that passes over their wires, they need to SHUT UP NOW, and never bring up this issue again.
They are Common Carriers. They don't get to do this, period. Next topic, please...
Thank you. Very well put. I wish it were that simple.
The problem is that we are supposed to be ruled by laws, not people. But, it's people who write and interpret those laws. And, in some cases it's people who decide that we're gonna stretch the law to nail someone. In other cases, we're gonna ignore clear violations of the law.
This is a long winded way of saying that congress could just say we're gonna define AT&T, Time Warner etc. as common carriers without holding them to the responsibilities of Common carriers. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ There is another way to improve the economy. You invest in the social programs Democrats sometimes champion
Except you're ignoring the fact that it's taking money away from the people who actually earned it and give it to people who didn't. Gov't sponsored theft if you ask me. - StealthTomato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry dude, I just don't see an internet-ocracy any time soon.
We do, however, need to do SOMETHING. Write your congressman. That may or may not help. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well, that's one way to look at it.
I look at it this way. They're both about controlling you.
Democrats are all about controlling you economically. They want to be the ones who raise tax rates & regulate the business you own or work for. Then, they'll determine IF you recieve the benefits you paid for (welfare, social security, medicade etc.) and at what rate. But, they do tend to be more permissive in terms of social issues such as freedom of speech and abortion.
Republicans tend to be less controlling economically, (lower taxes for EVERYONE fewer regulations on business) But more restrictive on social issues such as free speech, abortion & drugs.
Personally, I think the differences aren't that great. A vote for either one is a vote for giving up control over either your money or your personal life. I'd advocate voting 3rd party. Libertarian is my choice. You can make your own. - StealthTomato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OMG! PONIES!
But seriously, the fate of the internet dictates the course of technology.
If the 'net crashes due to packet throttling, etc. by ISP's, it will alter technology as we know it.
And you can't deny that the internet itself is technology.
This is _about_ the INTERNET, not about something _on_ the internet. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is