i gotta admit, I hate how so many domains are taken and are used for nothing
other than domain tasting / domain sniffing
some messed up economics lead to that whole disaster
Get the domain for 5 days before you actually have to pay for it?
I’d love to drive my fist into the chest of the tard who thought that was a good policy and rip out his still beating heart and show it to him. Or just give him a good talking to.
Let me get this straight, market analysts are thinking that Yahoo and their mobile partners are going to make boat loads of money from advertising on mobile devices. Let’s take this from the consumer perspective, rather than looking at numbers on a sheet of paper issued from the desk of a Yahoo exec.
If I sign up for a mobile phone that is locked to Yahoo services I’ll get: Yahoo Search, Yahoo Maps and Yahoo Mail.
Is there anything else I can get that’ll make my phone suck more?
Grab any Internet user off the street and ask them who they use for “search” on the web. I’ll bet nine times out of ten the answer is: “Google”. I’ll also go out on a huge limb and say that GMail is destroying Yahoo Mail and that spam collector known as Hotmail or Windows Live Mail. Google Maps vs. Yahoo Maps… that one is still up in the air although the integration possibilities (thru Google’s API) with Google Maps is far better than Yahoo’s. The click and drag interface of Google Maps is leaps and bounds better than Yahoo’s.
The end point is this: Capital Markets Analysts understand precious little about technology. Review what analysts have been saying about Apple over the past few years and you’ll start to get an idea of how brainless their analysis of technology is.
Quick summary:
CNBC.com pulls presidential debate online poll after candidate Ron Paul achieves 70%. CNBC.com claims poll was “hacked”.
Here are a few reasons why the removal of the poll by CNBC editor Allen Wastler is extremely weak:
To claim to know that the poll was hacked means that you have the ability to detect such activities. If you can detect when there’s “hacking” going on, why don’t you set up measures against it? Are you and your tech team so incompetent that you cannot implement something as simple as not letting someone vote twice?
Yes, I can understand that American science has no problems with developing complex technologies such as harnessing the power of nuclear fission or the Internet, but stopping voting irregularities is simply a bridge too far. Congratulations Allen Wastler, you’re leading the Most Incompetent Manager poll as well… (by 70%!)
Instead of simply noting that the poll may be subject to irregularities, you remove it altogether. Perhaps you should let the evidence speak for itself rather than succumb to Bush Administration secrecy tactics. Your Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful provides no evidence that your online poll was “hacked”. We’re simply left to take it on faith. This is not how the court of public opinion works, Allen. Without evidence to support your claims, the respectability of you and the organization you represent, dwindles like the opponents of Ron Paul in an online poll by CNBC.com (but was removed when the results were not inline with the upper management’s bias).
A quote from your ‘Open Letter’: “Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.” Ok, we’ve covered the incompetence part so let’s look at “target of a campaign“, the second part of your Supreme Court worthy “either/or” argument strategy (“Your Honor, the victim was viciously murdered… or… he fell down a well. Either way, the defendent must be guilty!“). So the devious Ron Paul supporters joined in a campaign to vote for their preferred candidate… How deliciously sneaky of them! Well, I guess we better start overturning Presidential elections since the establishment of the party system and campaigning. Allen, is this seriously your reasoning? Were you high when you wrote this? Imagine… just imagine a group of people getting together to support their preferred political leader! Preposterous and obvious censorship fodder!
You complain that the sentiments of a few are not serving “the many”. If “the few” attempts to make its voice heard by voting strongly and far more passionately than “the many”, do they not deserve to be heard? Must every poll reflect the numbers that you alone expect it to have? Does this small but vocal group of Ron Paul supporters not have the right to make their point?
When the only voice that’s allowed to be heard is that of the majority, and any dissension is crushed by the hand of the few (that’s you Allen) then you no longer have a democracy.
The United States is ranked 48th in terms of press freedom. Allen Wastler, in recognition of your efforts to push that number even deeper, your Myanmar honorary government post of State Censor awaits you.
Share this: 
It appears that many people are not understanding why Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. There are rampant complaints about the Peace Prize having lost its way, that its value is being watered down, and that it has become a political joke.
I beg to differ.
I think the reason is pretty self-evident with this paragraph (from the blog of the Center for Global Development):
“The IPCC Report leaves little doubt about the source of this problem: a century of uncontrolled emissions, particularly from the United States. We confront a stark reality here: Millions of the poor will be displaced by sea-level rise that has been caused by the affluent West, and the piper will ultimately be paid. When this happens, current international turbulence may seem placid by comparison.”
Starting to get the picture?
Nearly every country on Earth has had its borders defined by war. Do you think it would upset another country and its citizens if something you have done (and continue to do) destroys their coastal cities and reduces their arable land by staggering amounts? And what usually happens when one country has its borders changed by that of another? Or hell, if you’re the Bush administration you start wars with countries that are no imminent threat and for no reason in particular. Sorry, couldn’t help but throw that one in there.
The first phrase in Nobel’s description of who should win the Peace Prize is nearly a perfect fit for the people and groups involved in the global climate crisis.
“to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
If there’s to be one thing that brings the world together, it will be working on averting a global climate disaster. Without the support of the vast majority of industralized and developing countries it will be extremely difficult to stop the environmental train wreck that’s charging straight along.
I’m sure there are plenty of candidates that are deserving of this award, but you are mistaken if you think that preventing global climate change has nothing to do with world peace. This is why Al Gore and the IPCC are receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. I am in agreement with the Nobel committee in their choice.
Again, I think Al Gore and the IPCC are deserving of the award. But, then again, I’m not Alfred Nobel, nor the Norweigen Nobel committee that decides who gets the award, so I should probably shut my cake hole.
Share this:
To the people asking for scientific debate on global warming…
Please stop.
The debate has been over for quite some time. And by simply asking this question you make it quite clear that your input, hell, your knowledge of a debate, is completely unnecessary in the “debate” of the science behind our understanding of global climate change.
The debate started around 1993 and you’re asking to see some debate now, in the final days of 2007… How do I sum up that not only did you miss the boat, you are unaware that the ocean that the boat used to float in, has dried up. An article published in the journal Science, by Naomi Oreskes entitled “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” in 2004 looked at published scientific papers between the years 1993 and 2003 that were listed with the keywords “climate change”. A study of the 928 papers that resulted from this query resulted in 0 that opposed the general consensus view by scientists that global warming is due to human activities.
Zero papers. Out of 928. Zero.
And you’re still asking for some… debate.
Do you need the “debate” to be turned into a screenplay and have a movie produced with some big name Hollywood actors before you’ll be satisfied that there has been sufficient debate on the subject of whether global climate change is cause by humans or not?
Not all knowledge will be spoonfed to you in easy bite size chunks such as those peppering the silver screen at 24 frames per second. Sometimes you’ll actually have to tap the keys on the keyboard, dive into this whole “Internet” thing, do a titch of research yourself to find out that you’re completely out of the loop.
The scientific consensus on whether climate change is anthropogenic (human caused) or not… is long over.
Stop asking for the replay and accept the facts. You and I are responsible for global climate change. We are tasked to change our ways before we turn it into a big Sahara. No getting out of this. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Share this:
