Marah Marie’s Techdirt Profile

marahmarie

About Marah Marie




Marah Marie’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 23rd, 2012 @ 8:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: They get it - but they can't afford to act like they do. Make it stop!

    I saw no time frame referred to in your original post.

    I can't give you one. It was sometime within the last week; I'm a bit behind on offline reading, so the article I saw ran within the last week and a half or so at most. And I'd make more effort to find it online to link to but like I said, why bother.

    I find it humorous when people project their own traits upon others.

    Well, I didn't mean to project that way but I did, so you're right. I should have caught that before posting.

    If I'm locked shut it's simply because I don't trust Obama with anything anymore. Too many times he backs down, bends over, and otherwise infuriates people with bill after bill that he either doesn't stand up to enough or else pushes through himself when the bills in question are not in any normal human being's best interests. So yeah, I'm getting a little hard-headed about him since my disgust is reaching epic levels lately.

  • Jan 23rd, 2012 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: They get it - but they can't afford to act like they do. Make it stop!

    Oh goodie, so in the last few days after the sheer amount of protests and negative publicity SOA and PIPA have received Obama has changed his stance ever so slightly; how "nuanced" of him, and how perceptive of you to point this out as though it refutes anything I just said.

    Obama will probably back-peddle again in favor of the damn bills before this whole thing is over, seriously, who cares what he's saying now? In the meantime, as I was saying, he's afraid of losing Hollywood's support (can't find the exact AP article, which I read in a newspaper, but in the meantime here, have this: http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2012/01/17/obama-comes-out-against-current-sopa-and-pipa-legis lation-but-stops-short-of-killing-it/).

    Quote from the article, with emphasis my own:

    Before today, Obama has been disappointingly silent on the twin censorship bills. The problem is — the upcoming election. Obama and the Democrats get a lot of support from the Motion Picture Industry and ‘Hollywood types’ who seem to be extorting politicians into stifling the freedom of the Internet in effort to eliminate bootlegged material from surfacing on the net. [...] In an election year, the President has to walk a fine line, but the bills are far from being dead. While the White House came out and said that it wouldn’t support the current drafts of the legislation, it did say that it would support revised drafts. Hollywood is not going to let this go and they are going to call out favors for political donations.

    I could search and search and link and link you to more and more posts, including the AP article I can't find that said much the same thing, but if you're locked shut on this nothing is going to change your mind so why bother? Go ahead and trust Obama to do what's best for us: he won't - and no, I don't care what he's saying at the moment, it makes no difference. At most he'll support ever-so-slightly watering down (not eliminating) bills like SOPA and PIPA until he gets re-elected, then change his stance again.

  • Jan 22nd, 2012 @ 5:53pm

    They get it - but they can't afford to act like they do. Make it stop!

    From the OP: It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. But it's not just him; there was an AP article the other day saying the reason this is being fought about in Congress at all is that Obama had a chance to block these bills but passed because he himself doesn't want to offend Hollywood campaign contributors.

    Corruption transcends party lines, ideology, status in Washington, and any other form of compartmentalization in politics: it revolves around getting elected or re-elected, which thanks to the high cost of TV ads (which should be given away gratis as a public service) is so outrageously expensive that no one can get their foot in the door anymore without sucking up to everyone out there with a big, fat checkbook.

    Thanks to the high cost of running a visible, much less successful campaign, most politicians are forced to sell out. Unless you're Ron Paul - somehow he's managed not to - maybe everyone else from Obama on down ought to start taking notes on "how". In the meantime, campaign ads really need to become free of charge - why does no one pass a bill mandating that or even put one up to a vote? Get rid of the very reason for the corruption so we can start fighting these issues out on a more honest and level playing field?

  • Sep 21st, 2011 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Because Firefox is so bloated. Last night my copy was using 1.4GB of RAM on three tabs (I screencapped it doing so for posterity): one was on a tech article and two were on Dreamwidth. I only have 2GB of RAM to give for my browser, I mean my country, I mean to run all of my Windows. I mean seriously, *that's* just plain evil. I don't know what's happened to Firefox but it's getting harder and harder to run on less than a bajillion gigs of RAM.

    But as for evil otherwise? I'm not sure why anyone would say so. So they partner with Google - I'm not sure if that's evil, but if it is, you can always switch search engines.

  • Oct 12th, 2010 @ 4:36pm

    Doesn't Bing/Ask/whoever pass the search query along, too?

    Frankly, I think it's a bigger deal that browser info is passed on through the search query URL from the browser search box, like so:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=google+sucks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ya hoo:en-US:official&client=firefox

    No one's business what browser I'm using, or whether I have something installed from Yahoo (that looks artifact-y to me, since I don't have anything from Yahoo installed, but the last user of this computer did).

    Similarly, I resent the "safe Search off" parameter crowded into a normal (non-browser search box) search query:

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=google+is+evil&aq=f&am p;aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=74aa9d8d10e40e85

    Who's business is it that Safe Search is off? Who cares? Why must that be in there?

    That the search terms themselves are in there? Well, duh. I guess they should be, since it's helpful to have them from a webmaster's viewpoint.

    Unless the person bringing the complaint thinks webmasters should have less tools at their disposal for figuring out what their visitors want, not more...duh. Just duh.