« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 27, 2006
May 17, 2006
Save Invasion!
Those morons at ABC have cancelled the one show I watch. Yes, I know it's idiotic, but I like it.
Please sign the petition.
May 6, 2006
sic transit mind-numbing idiocy
No-Mow Grass May Be Coming to Your Yard Soon
For anyone tethered to a lawnmower, the Holy Grail of horticultural accomplishment would be grass that never grows but is always green.Now, that vision of suburban bliss—and more—seems plausible as scientists have mapped a critical hormone signaling pathway that regulates the stature of plants. In addition to lawns that rarely require mowing, the finding could also enable the development of sturdier, more fruitful crop plants such as rice, wheat, soybeans, and corn.
Way to go, gang. Time to link to this again.
May 5, 2006
Wasn't it nice of Daddy to mow the lawn?
Brownie and Fifi the Cat enjoying the day.
May 2, 2006
NYT gets it right
Keeping a Democratic Web - New York Times
"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause.One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.
That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money. There is a growing movement of Internet users who are pushing for legislation to make this kind of discrimination impossible. It has attracted supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Gun Owners of America. Grass-roots political groups like these are rightly concerned that their online speech could be curtailed if Internet service providers were allowed to pick and choose among Web sites.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee defeated a good Net-neutrality amendment last week. But the amendment got more votes than many people expected, suggesting that support for Net neutrality is beginning to take hold in Congress. In the Senate, Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, are drafting a strong Net-neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.
"Providers could also block access to sites they do not like." Could, have and will. The net does not need a Clear Channel. It's a common carrier, just like the phone company. Do you want Verizon telling you whom you can call? Don't let them control what you can read.
By the way, large sites, all websites in fact, already pay for their bandwidth usage. What I pay is directly tied to my number of readers in a given month. My hosting service pays part of that to the backbone providers. It's all already paid for, folks.
well done
YouTube - Mac/Windows Virus-Free Ad
and high time, although not, perhaps, exactly true....