SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 77
  1. #26
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    I appreciate your opinion Alex, but given all the people who think Google is out of it's mind on this one, I'm still deeply concerned.
    I'm not saying I'm not concerned, I'm a firm supporter of net neutrality, but I think the whole situation is being blown out of proportion on the basis of a very loosely defined 2 page scribble which isn't specific in the slightest, which is precisely what the document is... it's not a set of guidelines or rules, it's an overview memo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    Is Google innocent? Could be that they're just stupid and not handling their press releases properly. They wouldn't be the first big company to spawn an unnecessary scandal by bad PR management.
    I think Google released a sketch of their views and people focused entirely on what was omitted, not what was stated as if it were set in stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrac View Post
    Second, the internet has been built by private companies. They built the infrastructure. They spent a lot of money to get the technology created. To be blunt, they own it. If the government starts infringing on the big companies property rights, how long will it be before mine are taken away?
    Jerrac, get your facts straight, the Internet was originally conceived and built by DARPA with funding from the US government and the WWW was developed by CERN which also gets government funding from several nations. The infrastructure was not built by a bunch of dot com investors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrac View Post
    Third, would you really rather have the Government in charge of the net? Seriously? The only effect that would have is to make things worse. I'd much rather have a big company that I know will be seeking to get as much money from me as they can, than have a government playing games with all kinds of hard to understand regulations. Those regulations would be supposed to do what the government says they do, but would actually do another. That is what happens with most Laws. To give the Government more authority would be utterly stupid.
    You do realise that laws still apply to the net so it's not as "free" of a place as you would make it out too be. Intellectual Property law is a perfect example, as is human rights regulations (to try and put an end to sick stuff like kiddie porn), or are you in favour of making the web a true "anything goes" society?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    Further, if your competitor pays more money than you do, then they receive additional considerations, better technologies, faster download speeds that they can offer users, or even eliminating your content entirely. A big problem with the Google rules is that they allow ISPs to "restrict" content for legal and copyright reasons.
    That already happens worldwide, or have you not heard of bandwidth throttling or caps (to maintain a stable service for all customers), people being kicked off for violating terms of service agreements, tiered service plans (like you pay different amounts for dial-up, DSL, satellite, fibre, T-lines, OC backbones, etc). What you are talking about has been instated for years by many nations, as has restricting content like child porn on the basis of legal and human rights situations.

  2. #27
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    the Internet was originally conceived and built by DARPA with funding from the US government and the WWW was developed by CERN which also gets government funding from several nations.
    Derpa-derp! Built off the back of my hard-earned tax money!

    ..oh wait, I wasn't alive then. Ok, my parents hard-earned tax money! Lawlz. : )
    (hm, that sounded like sarcasm, but I'm in agreement with Alex)

    But Big Pharma's been doing this for years as well: take publicly-funded health studies and drug tests and use them to sell more stuff... and anything they add to the knowledge, is thuper-thecret! Maybe pharm research needs a GPL-style license...

    Quote Originally Posted by ChronicalMaster
    I appreciate that this is the "Field of Dreams" argument. "If you let big business charge whatever they want for whatever they build, they will come." But we shouldn't kid ourselves... that means the complete end of Net Neutrality.
    Actually, my comment was thinking more of a lessening of the <BLINK>-tag mentality on the web... if you have to PAY to have those fancy useless JS effects, maybe you'll think twice about using them : ) And, kind of a joke of course.

  3. #28
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Alex just beat me to the fact that the internet is built upon the ISO open-standards OSI model, and the TCP/IP is a protocol stack. The DoD had a ARPANET (like Skynet in Terminator ). Eventually UNIX got ported with TCP/IP as default since the DoD model couldn't cope with rapid growth.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dren View Post
    So I'm assuming everyone but Alex hasn't read this? After reading that, Google doesn't seem so evil to me... Maybe I'm just optimistic, though?

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/...eutrality.html
    It seems like a ton of you here missed this post.. so I'm going to quote it again for you all to read. Go read this statement by Google.

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/...eutrality.html
    TierEngine - Reliable Dedicated Servers and Colocation
    99.9% Uptime Guaranteed
    View our Dedicated Server Deals!
    Have questions? We can help. 888.233.6133 - support(at)tierengine.com

  5. #30
    Designer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    590
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why doesn't anybody read the document. IT'S ONLY TWO PAGES.

    If you read it, you would see that it specifically talks about preventing ISP's from adversely affecting ordinary users. The only thing the documents hints to a "tiered" internet (it's not) is to allow ISP's to provide services which are different from connecting to the internet in the traditional manner, but may allow access to internet related-content.

    Y'know, like Google.tv?

    or say, like a members-only iTunes-like curated app-store (additional content which does not affect ordinary users).

    The main point about additional services is: if you don't want it, you don't need to pay for it, because it's not supposed to affect how you use the internet anyway.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Jerrac, get your facts straight, the Internet was originally conceived and built by DARPA with funding from the US government and the WWW was developed by CERN which also gets government funding from several nations. The infrastructure was not built by a bunch of dot com investors.
    Ah, sorry. My bad.

    So, didn't Comcast/ATT/big corp fund the construction of miles of cable and fiberoptic lines? That's what I was thinking of... Am I wrong there too? (Don't have time right now to go research it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    You do realise that laws still apply to the net so it's not as "free" of a place as you would make it out too be. Intellectual Property law is a perfect example, as is human rights regulations (to try and put an end to sick stuff like kiddie porn), or are you in favour of making the web a true "anything goes" society?
    I have no problems with the government dealing with criminal activity. I do have problems with them regulating how a non-government company serves its customers.
    --David Reagan
    DavidReagan.net

  7. #32
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's a lot of Chicken Little in this thread.

    Aside from "premium" services separate from the public internet (a faster, less laggy gaming connection? Yes please. I'd pay for that.), there is also the consideration of things like Internet2, which I'm pretty sure already has a separate (and higher) cost than "public" internet.
    ---
    Ben Overmyer
    Artist, Web Designer, and Gaming Writer
    Visit my site and read my blog: Mana Trance Creative

  8. #33
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrac View Post
    First, any company that did any of the things you mention would crash and burn really fast. They might be able to sneak stuff like that in slowly, but that's unlikely.
    One word, Microsoft. I know people like to treat economics like physics, but it's more a branch of psychology; it doesn't work logically.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  9. #34
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    I know people like to treat economics like physics, but it's more a branch of psychology; it doesn't work logically.
    You might like a book I picked up: Critical Mass. It's worth it just for the history of physics in the beginning!

  10. #35
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by XLCowBoy View Post
    Why doesn't anybody read the document. IT'S ONLY TWO PAGES.
    The problem isn't that people didn't read the document, the problem is that those who read it are making assumptions about Google's intent because they DIDN'T mention something within those two small pages (which is like saying as Google didn't mention Nazi's their pro-Hitler). Either there's a lot of illogical people online, or everyone has been looking for a reason to hate Google (as Microsoft, Apple and Facebook had their turn) so used this as a platform to start lynching.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrac View Post
    So, didn't Comcast/ATT/big corp fund the construction of miles of cable and fiberoptic lines? That's what I was thinking of... Am I wrong there too? (Don't have time right now to go research it.)
    The construction of cable and fibre optic lines have absolutely nothing to-do with the Internet or the World Wide Web (apart from being just a more optimized method of transmitting data). The Internet existed back in the day when everyone used 56K modems that did the transmission via conventional pre-existing telephone wiring, the idea that the funding of the Internet should be based on who laid down the most cable is like saying that the discovery and ownership of electricity should be based on who paid the most to fund the storage and transmission of energy. The infrastructure (technology) behind the net was not created by utility companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrac View Post
    I have no problems with the government dealing with criminal activity. I do have problems with them regulating how a non-government company serves its customers.
    That's a total contradiction of terms. If a business decided it wanted to serve kiddie porn or warez or sell peoples credit card details (all of which would be criminal activities), you are saying that the fact they are a business should prevent the government getting involved in how they serve their clients (yet you also want them to deal with the problem, which would mean regulating the said businesses). You can't have it both ways... it's either regulate all or don't at all.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:


    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Off Topic:


    You might like a book I picked up: Critical Mass. It's worth it just for the history of physics in the beginning!
    I've heard about that (I'm an English major to boot, so I've got a fair amount of scientific and mathematical history too). Have you read Kuhn's original book on paradigm shifts? It did NOT make him popular in the scientific community for the most part. Have you read Gödel, Escher, Bach? I've heard wonderful things about it and it's supposed to be a a more accessible version of some of the things I've read in my math textbooks on Gödel. Just amazing.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  12. #37
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    No, but the description of Hobbes' theory of the rules governing man and how poorly that was received reminds me of it[SSR]. It also mentioned that Galileo was forced by the Church to take back his words, publicly, about motion. I never knew that.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't understand why it's being presented as such a complicated issue. My believe is that net neutrality means:
    - I pay for access to internet and for a certain speed and bandwidth.
    - The provider can and may not decide which packages of data get to me faster and the provider can and may not allow or disallow certain packages.

    So net neutrality means that for the provider it doesn't matter if I visit website A or B, they are both just bits being sent over the line. With the same speed. If I want more speed, I pay extra to the internet provider and both sites A and B load faster.

    This is what the whole internet is build upon, this is what everyone wants, right? In what way is Google or Verizon able to change this?

  14. #39
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Google is one of the leading SE's doing business. No one can think about it. The most part of the SE market is captured by the giant Google. So I think there is no alternative for Google.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    I'm not saying I'm not concerned, I'm a firm supporter of net neutrality, but I think the whole situation is being blown out of proportion on the basis of a very loosely defined 2 page scribble which isn't specific in the slightest, which is precisely what the document is... it's not a set of guidelines or rules, it's an overview memo.
    I respect that Google has produced an overview memo, but the FCC is not reviewing an overview memo, they're reviewing a major joint proposal from Google and Verizon. All right, let's take a look at the whole thing then, since we seem to be bouncing around with what is and is not included. The proposal the FCC is reviewing will...

    1. Limit FCC jurisdiction (that's good, let's limit the FCC power to the areas and actions where they're appropriate)
    2. Create a standards body (OK, we've already got the W3C, but maybe Google knows more than I do. Maybe we need to create another new internet bureaucracy. That sucks, but if we have to [and Google says we do] then I guess we have to.)

    On that level, it's not an unreasonable proposal. I think if this is what's necessary to get net neutrality done and codified appropriately, then the majority of us can swallow that horse pill.

    However...

    Problem 1: The proposal which the FCC is considering also requests exceptions for “reasonable network management” and “lawful” content. As you've pointed out these are terribly easy ways for carriers to screw around with net neutrality. When other groups have proposed similar exceptions, Google itself has been among the leaders saying that doesn't fly. So WHAT are they doing in Google's own proposal.

    Problem 2: Why does Wireless technology get a virtual pass on Net Neutrality, according the proposal wireless would only be required to satisfy the transparency requirements of net neutrality. That is certainly NOT net neutral.

    Problem 3: More importantly, “additional online services” are excluded. The EFF analysis of Google's proposal notes that most new innovation will occur in these areas.

    "much of the innovation we expect to occur in the future will involve services “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services." If discrimination is allowed for all such things, then there could easily be little left on the “neutral” part of the Internet in a few years."

    These are major issues, most of which Google itself has opposed. That's one of the key reasons this smells bad. I think it's entirely fair to judge Google by the same criteria they've championed for so many years. I just ask Google to live up to the same standards they've required everyone else to live up to.

    Quote Originally Posted by matthijsA View Post
    So net neutrality means that for the provider it doesn't matter if I visit website A or B, they are both just bits being sent over the line. With the same speed. If I want more speed, I pay extra to the internet provider and both sites A and B load faster.

    This is what the whole internet is build upon, this is what everyone wants, right? In what way is Google or Verizon able to change this?
    Because Verizon is one of the carriers sending you bits, and if IBM or Amazon pays $2 million dollars (or billion or whatever) for a special connection, then their websites are downloaded to you at a preferential speed. There are also exceptions to net neutrality which would allow carriers like Verizon to stop carrying your website entirely on the grounds that your content is not "lawful" (Alex has noted a couple cases where this has been egregiously abused) or that if violates someones copyright (an argument big companies have used directly with ISPs when they felt they didn't have a strong enough case to go to court). Not to mention the caching used to speed mobile downloads which I'm sure some people are just dying to sell priority for (instead of having to treat everyone equal like they do now).
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard cranial-bore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,634
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson

    Originally Posted by Jerrac
    I have no problems with the government dealing with criminal activity. I do have problems with them regulating how a non-government company serves its customers.
    That's a total contradiction of terms. If a business decided it wanted to serve kiddie porn or warez or sell peoples credit card details (all of which would be criminal activities), you are saying that the fact they are a business should prevent the government getting involved in how they serve their clients (yet you also want them to deal with the problem, which would mean regulating the said businesses). You can't have it both ways... it's either regulate all or don't at all.
    Wow, what a spectacular twisting of the statement Alex! Jerrac did not imply that business activity takes higher precedence than criminal activity; that a crime can be nullified if done commercially. It's a huge stretch for you to infer that from what he wrote. Really huge.
    mikehealy.com.au
    diigital.com art, design . Latest WorkSaturday Morning

  17. #42
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Sorry but I don't agree, various things that Jerrac has stated (some of which is seriously packed with misinformation) have lead me to believe that it's exactly what he's implying. Whether he is or otherwise is up for interpretation (and I'm only stating my opinion) but the quoted statement below below explicitly implies a correlation to the notion that he's saying a businesses ability to operate freely holds more precedence (in his mind) than the government preventing potentially criminal activities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrac
    I'd much rather have a big company that I know will be seeking to get as much money from me as they can, than have a government playing games with all kinds of hard to understand regulations.
    Interpret the above as you will, but to me it suggests that capitalism and opportunism (or what level of legality is undeclared) is preferential to regulatory compliance.

  18. #43
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I'd much rather have a big company that I know will be seeking to get as much money from me as they can, than have a government playing games with all kinds of hard to understand regulations.
    We used to have that. And we got:
    -rats in the sausage
    -sawdust in the flour
    -child labour

    It took a very long time for these to get regulated. Politicians who were pro-free-market were against those regulations then and are against them today. They believe things like the above would eventually go away because the market "would sort itself out". However, actual buying habits of human beings and marketing habits of investors show that it doesn't work that way. And usually, if there is real flour for sale and sawdust-with-flour for sale, the poor will choose the sawdust, because it's cheaper and the other option is no flour at all. A company can argue "hey, we're making flour an actual OPTION for people. We're the good guys".

  19. #44
    SitePoint Addict Newviewit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I believe Google has outgrown it's usefulness because:

    -search results are biased towards large corporations (adwords, products, images, video). Almost everywhere you look Google promotes paid results or its own products. Everyday Google makes search results more impossible for small mom and pop business. Alternative: Bing. Yes MS sucks but their market share is so small and there is no competition so I don't mind helping them out to dethrone Google.

    -gmail. Liked it before but feel Google is more and more evil everyday. Mining personal information to serve ads is just the start to what they can do with your personal information and it might be sold to the highest bidder once their display ad revenue starts shrinking. Alternatives: not much but seriously Hotmail just released an update with ok features, or host your own and deal with spam.

    -docs. If you are a business why on earth would you let a marketing company (google) know any of your business secrets? Stay away from docs and use Open Office or MS Office

    -Google voice - interesting product but again I don't want a marketing company recording my calls or using my personal info in any way. Alternatives - skype or setup own (not that hard).

    -youtube. useful if you can sort out the trash. When they start plastering the site with ads you can expect it to loose market share. Alternatives - hulu and many others

    ... of course G has more products but the competition is not that bad... give others a try and you will not be disappointed. Google does not run the world and keeps digging it's own grave every day. There is a reason even Google employees protested against Google and their stance on net neutrality. Just another reason to not trust or do business with Google.
    UNLIMITED Domains - UNLIMITED Disk Space - UNLIMITED Bandwidth
    *Black Friday - Website Hosting Deal of The Year - 50% OFF!

  20. #45
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy AndrewCooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    631
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    So, what alternative services are available out there for someone who used to use Google for analytics and advertising? Which ones are best and why?
    For Web Analytics software you might like to try W3Counter or Mint, alternatively you could have a look at the Wikipedia page List of web analytics software.

    As for advertising you could have a look at BuySellAds or see the Wikipedia page List of advertising networks.

    Hope that helps you in finding alternatives to Google As for an alterative search engine there are many out there, as I'm sure you already know, the choice is more personal than anything, so if you have such strong negative feelings towards Google then perhaps you should definitely choose another search engine to use whether it is slower or not.

    Andrew Cooper

  21. #46
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Some of my sites use AWstats. They're good enough, but not as detailed as some of the paid-for stuff.

  22. #47
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Newviewit, the problem with your comments is that they are mostly highly irrational and don't reflect very well on reality.

  23. #48
    SitePoint Addict Newviewit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My dislike of Google is very real for myself and various people in the industry that I talk to on a daily basis across numerous internet verticals.

    Of course everyone has a right to their opinion.

    Could you be so kind as to enlighten me with your rational argument and why most of what I say is irrational?
    UNLIMITED Domains - UNLIMITED Disk Space - UNLIMITED Bandwidth
    *Black Friday - Website Hosting Deal of The Year - 50% OFF!

  24. #49
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Interpret the above as you will, but to me it suggests that capitalism and opportunism (or what level of legality is undeclared) is preferential to regulatory compliance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    We used to have that. And we got:
    -rats in the sausage
    -sawdust in the flour
    -child labour

    It took a very long time for these to get regulated.
    I think we might be a little too hard on Jerrac, I wish he were around to clarify. However, the tenor of his remarks certainly lend themselves to this interpretation. I think we have a very broad international coalition and politics can vary from one place to another. However, I'm in the US and there are large segments actively campaigning on the idea that government regulations of any kind are bad, and they have specifically singled out many government evils for attack like...

    1. making sure that people have health insurance instead of dying
    2. spending any money to stimulate the economy since business will take care of everyone

    So, I don't believe it's fair to say that Alex or anyone is accusing anyone of being Hitler based on these comments. There are millions of people in the US alone who proudly declare these positions everyday. If you are upset that you look evil when someone says such things about you... well... then stop actively campaigning that you're going to do exactly those things when you get elected. This is not a particularly complicated solution.

    If it's a topic that you want to bring up and talk about, then fine. Let's talk about it. Just don't bring it up and then get mad because you realize what it sounds like when someone else quotes it back to you. And there's certainly no reason to get mad at us.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ditch google analytics with http://piwik.org/ open source


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •