RockLobster

Misinformation is a tremendously huge problem in the US (and in other countries as well.) Remember when the Biden administration announced they were going to create an anti-misinformation group to combat misinformation? Fox News and the Republicans (in that order) went absolutely nuts against the idea. They didn't like misinformation either, but they absolutely couldn't accept the Democrats in charge of fixing it. Do you see all the parallels here, and there are many, bird brain?

When you asked "do you have any idea..." 90%+ of population knows full well that government spending is full of waste, and has been for well over five decades. Yes, yes, we all know that already. We've know it our entire lifetime. Reminding us of something we have all known for decades is a bird brain move - maybe look in the mirror. You're just being silly now. Setting up yet another expensive department to research having too many expensive departments - staffed with folks that have a conflict of interest, who will obviously profit significantly from this new department? More government. More rules. Adding rich guys to the fat with their own agenda won't cut the fat. But it will make those guys richer. (And whatever they cut, it is almost guaranteed to make low income folks even less well off. Remember when Trump decided it was a good idea to cut the tiny meals-on-wheels expenditure?) You think this is a good idea? Then you've been hornswoggled.

You act like you just discovered something. Except, you didn't. It's been known by literally everyone for decades The federal government is ridiculous wasteful. Corporations are also all ridiculously wasteful. It comes with scale. Small companies can be much less wasteful than larger ones. As they grow, waste reduction becomes less and less achievable. More things being exchanged at a greater pace, with a focus on pace - waste becomes a secondary focus (at best.) As the continue to grow to the largest scale, it becomes virtually impossible to globally monitor so many moving parts in the interest of efficiency. At that point, efficiency efforts - if they are to work at all - simply must be relegated to the departments, compartments, divisions, sub-divisons, etc. And, even then, they have to be monitored by managers. Yep - it's inefficient and wasteful. When a coupla' "favorite" non-government guys who don't know government from shinola... suddenly get a government "efficiency" job at the top of the federal level. It ain't nothing but rigged BS. They'll both be guaranteed to get more wealthy (Tesla stock has already jumped after the announcement.) American citizens? Sorry - nothing for you here. At least nothing good. This was all about power making more wealth for the already wealthy. And - yes that money comes from taxpayers.

You just did it again, jackass. I'm in the business of communicating. You clearly do not want to communicate. This is a problem on a forum where discussion and communication is the very point. Read above to my posts that did those very things. Make a point, communicate, say something useful, or STFU.

"Hourly rate"? Wtf? These guys aren't plumbers, they are only in it for wealth. Wealth is transferred differently in those circles (as I said above, watch Musk's wealth grow as his main competition is overly taxed by the White House.) In this particular case, the US consumer loses. If we wanted an electric car, we'll have to pay more - not less. While Musk earns more - not less. In this new administration, even the extremely wealthy will gain more wealth - while US taxpayers see more inflation.

If you think Musk's businesses are the model of efficiency - then you aren't informed and/or aren't paying attention. SpaceX is a tremendously wasteful company. X is far less profitable than it used to be. Tesla used to have the advantage of lack of competition - that is changing quickly (although arguably not as quickly now that Musk can cause his Chinese competition to have to pay significant tariffs.) It's simple, Musk maintains his wealth the same way Trump has - by spending investors money rather than his own.

I think I'm communicating just fine. What part do you have a problem with? If you'd like to contribute - then contribute. Speak up or stfu.

Well, then I'll point it out again for anyone who missed it. I've heard it may take up to (3) times for a good point to stick for those without as sharp a mind. So here's your 2nd. I'll post another later for you for good measure. Woof.

That's closer, but still not quite right (it's all in the link I included in my last post. You'd have to read it to know what I was communicating to you.) If anyone is interested - read the link, it's here: The rise and fall of the Gopher protocol - MinnPost To the rest of your points: No. You weren't using the web until the web browser existed and web servers were hosting data. No. You didn't know where to find the info until you had a browser (and even if you did, you couldn't view it.) Gopher was a more widely used browser than Mosaic, until it wasn't. Then Mosaic was. Until it wasn't. Both were very successful in their time... which eventually meant mildly successful for a couple years. Gopher included both server and client systems. Mosaic was only a client system that communicated with the WWW server system - the latter being developed by Tim Berners-Lee before Mosaic came into being. Gopher vs WWW? (This is what, again, I included in the link above for those that are interested) In a nutshell, as Gopher was being wound down - WWW was being expanded w/graphics, video, etc. Ol' Bob Metcalfe (as you referenced above) didn't exactly crack the case on what was happening in 1995. His reference above was somewhat subtle, but it was when porn joined the internet in ~1995 that things took off. Porn had existed on the internet but it was difficult to find and interact with (or so I've heard) With the expansion of the www to include graphics, audio/video, it took off and the internet took off with it. Gopher, who? Mosaic, who? Porn was the killer application that built the internet as we know it.

No surprise. After the election, many of us have had more than enough party politics and could use a break. I would expect that is the case in mid-November every election year.

... THIS is the game I played the most as a child. Can anyone name it? (Don't cheat!)

That is young. When PINE came out, I was using Eudora over POP3/SMTP and PINE looked like it came out of a cave. Speaking of caves - some of us had expended countless hours exploring the Colossal Cave and the Zork Underground before MUDs existed. (The former, at times, on a bangin' teletype.)

Gopher is/was a browsing system, WAIS is/was a search engine. They are different animals. Kind of like Google Chrome is a browser, and Google Search is a search engine. Or in Microsoft parlance, Edge is a browser and Bing is a search engine.

"Well sure but where did the first browser come from?" Not Marc Andreessen and not the NCSA in Illinois. That Mosaic browser was one of the first browsers - but not the first. And not the first 'www' browser, either. Gopher arrived in 1991 (a couple years before Mosaic) and was quite a bit more popular than any of the other browsers, including the 'www' browsers at the time. (see: The rise and fall of the Gopher protocol - MinnPost) But make no mistake - there was almost no content to browse anyway. A few dozen sites globally or so in the first few years. Wasn't exactly the "good old days". If you were one of the few with an email address, it didn't help much. Unless you knew someone in the military (.mil) or someone else in higher education (.edu), there was basically no-one to exchange email with. Things are soooo much better now. And still all 'free'... except someone still has to pay the bills. So, ads.

"On abortion"... Might as well stop there. You have shown you are clearly not intellectually capable of any type of serious discussion.

... ah, just like it's done in China. Grading performance and rewarding those that perform better while penalizing those that don't. Very Chinese of you. And among the most simple minded perspectives possible.

Everything is a debate - it's the very essence of why this forum exists. Correct your chart!? Delete that disaster of a chart, child. Then go back to school to realize how much you have to learn.

Why would we hate the media, you dumbbell ? Sure - some people will blame right media sources, while others will blame left media sources. That has always been the case and will always be. It's not the media that is causing the divide - they just report on it. That should be obvious. From the most visible and trustworthy (mainstream) to some random high schooler running a podcast out of his basement, to some guy in China pretending to be an American and who's only purpose is to stir the pot. All media sources will always be potential targets for blame. Again - it'll always be that way. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THAT would justify "hate" for the media in any way, shape, or form. It just strengthens the notion that we need to be careful about who we trust. (In this case, definitely not you.) You are nothing but an anti-America stooge. Trying to twist simple reality into reasoning for hating the media. You're pathetic.

Ha!! 36 rows and 2 columns. If we ever needed an illustration for severe and wrongheaded oversimplification - we now have it. I'll do it one better: Policy = Who's best? Right = It's us Left = <insert silly representation of left here that makes them look bad>

Your post here is just a whole bunch of stupid. You're arguing toward me with a bunch of stuff I didn't say and you're doing it poorly. I'm not saying you're stupid. I like many of your posts. This is not one of your good posts.

Dog. You're barking up the wrong tree. This thread is about climate change. See my post above.

Cool. Thanks for the response. The data is that billionaires are dying. Need more data? It's right here... Google "billionaires who died in 2024" and then read Need more? Google "billionaires who died in 2023" and then read some more Adjust the google search to suit you, and then read more You'll find that guys like Bernard Marcus, who passed about a week ago at 95, still had tons of money at the time of their passing. In other words, they had much more money than they were able to spend in their lifetime. (Their money resided in financial institutions of one sort or another. Don't quibble about the word 'bank' - don't be a twit.) The most important part here is that THE ABOVE IS NOT the topic of the thread or the topic of my post. The thread is about Climate change. The post I contributed was very specifically about climate change. The "billionaires dying with billions in the bank" was clearly about personal excessive greed and lack of concern about the much bigger picture. The big blue marble that we all live on and that none of us will be able to survive without. Not us, not our kids, not our great-great-great-grandchildren, and so on. We (collectively) have the resources to keep the planet healthy. Yet so many tend to piss the resources away as if the planet doesn't need our help. As if the unending greed to fill our pockets will protect us from the trajectory to disaster we're currently on. Many billionaires have their pockets overflowing - yet pass on without making a dent in what is really important.

Ha!! That's also very funny. Trump is a media personality, not a politician, and not a leader by any stretch. As a media personality, he inserts himself into the public eye every single chance he gets. He is the world's greatest publicity whore that has ever been. He wants to be seen, he needs to be seen, it always has to be about him. The idea that we should "leave him alone" is hysterical. It's the very last thing he wants.

I actually liked that joke. "South Park" in nature, equal opportunity to make fun of everybody. It was funny stuff - must be a humorless room we've got here.

Cry my a river. There was never any value to be destroyed, just perceived value by investors with too much money. The real loser is the climate. We only have one earth, climate change is real, and if we keep pissing away investment dollars to chase more dollars instead of investing in making our planet habitable for our grandchildren and their grandchildren, then we're doing it wrong. Billionaires keep dying with billions in the bank. Does anyone need a better definition of greed? More money than they could spend but little investment to improve the place that brought them life and the only place where humanity can survive. And the earth continues to slowly get sicker. It's turned into some kind of joke about "greenies." Laugh it up. But your great-great-great-grandchildren won't be laughing. And we will have left them with no options to turn to. This earth is the only one we have. After it is too sick - everyone dies. Forever.