Slashdot Mirror

Yes, but with Nature's Miracle you don't have to. Just leave it there and no one will ever know.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/49811/january-18-2006/bring--em-back-or-leave--em-dead---teacher-s-edition

For those who don't know our two national treasures:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

http://www.colbertnation.com/home?xrs=sem_g_col_colbert_report

So to recap, in three rounds of replies you've gone from:

"What's wrong with editing for impact?"

to

"He doesn't edit anything! You're a liar!"

No, I know that every bit of news, ever, has been edited, and therefore know that one news source saying "OMG that other guy has done editing" is a distraction tactic to stop you from hearing what's being said. I will know you're an idiot so long as you fail to explain what -=exactly=- has been done as part of this "editing" process you hate with such a passion, and how exactly those things are a)not ok and b)not done by your own sources? Be very careful about b), you've quote Fox News (winners of the "we're allowed to knowingly lie in the news" lawsuit).

"OMG your sources are bullshit!" + Grammar Nazi.

Your sources ARE bullshit! You should be ashamed of trotting them out. Seriously.

They're guilty of =intentionally misleading= editing. They do it routinely. And you, in your blatant jingo bias, want other people to dismiss wikileaks because of those shameless liars accusing wikileaks of "editing". Mysterious, ominous editing.

Fine. Here's an interview of Assange saying explicitly that he edited that video and presented that edited video to the public

Again, editing a video and showing it to the public is NOT A BAD THING. It's perfectly normal, good and honest behavior for someone who wants the world to know something. And further more, you're showing me a video of the guy honestly saying he did it, and you think that's going to make me think he's dishonest...

What you defend in your shrill, babyish cries of "but but but he edited the video for impact!" is the continued murder of thousands upon thousands of people, and the lies of the pentagon told to justify their murders, lies that I don't claim vaguely they may have possibly implied through mysterious editing (as you would), lies I can quote verbatim: ''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,'' said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

And if you go and watch the videos (edited or unedited) you will not find a hostile force clearly engaged in combat with that helicopter.

But you'll defend that too, because you are dishonestly 'patriotic', whatever wrongs your side does you'll say didn't happen, and when someone points out those murderous lies, you'll whine "editing" rejoice when the spokesperson for the truth is being kompromat.

So, when you complain about "editing", the other idiots in your echo chamber will pat you on the back for catapulting the propaganda, but you out yourself as a brainless idiot to anyone capable of critical thinking, because intelligent people know that "editing" is part of the normal process of news disclosure, and you're pretending it isn't (or more likely, ignorantly parroting the lines you were fed without the intelligence needed to actively pretend).

So to recap, in three rounds of replies you've gone from:

"What's wrong with editing for impact?"

to

"He doesn't edit anything! You're a liar!"

to

"OMG your sources are bullshit!" + Grammar Nazi.

Fine. Here's an interview of Assange saying explicitly that he edited that video and presented that edited video to the public and admitting the vast majority of people never see the unedited version. Go ahead and bitch about it being on a late night comedy/satire show as if that somehow makes Assange not say what he says.

Give it a rest. You lost.
=Smidge=

Tell me... How does this "multi-pass" compare to free?

Also, as the iTS stuff is all encrypted, "forever and ever" is really "until Apple's signing server no longer supports the show."

And I say this as someone who rents movies off of iTS (as I do see the value in that).

...and neither the animals nor the people are a danger to anyone.

I take you don't know much about bears. Bears that become accustomed to people are very dangerous.

As demonstrated repeatedly on the Threatdown.

...and neither the animals nor the people are a danger to anyone.

I take you don't know much about bears. Bears that become accustomed to people are very dangerous.

As demonstrated repeatedly on the Threatdown.

...and neither the animals nor the people are a danger to anyone.

I take you don't know much about bears. Bears that become accustomed to people are very dangerous.

As demonstrated repeatedly on the Threatdown.

Please see Colbert's take on trickle down economics..

Terrorists indeed!

John Slattery for Prescott Financial urges you to diversify your gold portfolio with women and sheep.

Sigh... What's with kids today? The poster was being satirical --in the spirit of Swift's Modest Proposal or Colbert. Sure, it took me a couple of sentences to catch on, but come on people, obviously dpbsmith is being funny. Please mod appropriately.

Just look at the capabilities of a quad or a hummer to see just how rough terrain can get and still allow for wheeled designs. At this point, of course, things probably become so expensive that it does make sense to switch to legs. My point was just that, unless you really are designing a robot to clamber over obstacles, or climb moon-cliffs, legs may very well be an over-design to the system.

Ok I did that and this is what I seen So what was your point again?

As Steven Colbert recently demonstrated, Wikileaks has a clear agenda.

Whether you agree with that agenda or not, once you know that Wikileaks has an agenda you're stupid if you don't realize they're going to prioritize their agenda over your interests.

USE Wikileaks if you want. Like a piece of toilet paper if that floats your boat.

But only a FOOL would trust them.

I sort of research in this area (only sorta, but enough to keep up and know about half the people in it). So I can't help but throw out some additional resources, which you can interpret as "stuff I like".

FWIW, the general idea is usually referred to as "serious games", with a bunch of terms like "persuasive games", "games for change", "games with a purpose", "political games", "news games", etc. having more specific meanings.

I personally rather like Ian Bogost's book on the subject, which, contrary to a lot of stuff in this space, is more measured in talking about both the possible benefits and likely pitfalls. Although I love the idea and think it has a lot of promise, I've got to admit most attempts to make "serious" or "political" or "world-changing" games fall flat. Anyone played McCain's 2004 campaign game, "John Kerry Tax Invaders"? It's exactly what you think it is: a space-invaders clone with John Kerry tax bills coming down at you, in place of aliens. Hilarious, but kind of stupid. So I think it's important to not be fan-boyish about it, and figure out what would make the medium actually flourish for these sorts of purposes. (FWIW, Bogost also has a former blog on "games with an agenda", and a interesting Colbert appearance).

An interesting precursor is Chris Crawford's 1980s games, which tackled subjects like the Cold War and the environment in interesting ways. He's now giving away a .txt of a book describing the design behind Balance of Power (1986), still something of a high-water mark in combining the simulation genre with attempts to really make people think about the real world.

For more recent games, specifically in response to news events, some of which have activist content and some of which are just commentary, there's also a newsgame index. In addition, there's a recent paper discussing whether and how newsgames might become the 21st century's equivalent of political cartoons.

"I value my privacy. I've been very consistent about that. I've said it on my TV show, my Twitter feed, my Facebook page, my live web Colonoscopy cam."

- Stephen Colbert

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/267560/march-17-2010/united-states-census-2010

In Buddhism, I know of no concept of a "messiah". None. Maybe those of you who have perhaps studied more of the Sutras than I could offer another point of view.

Maitreya is a future Buddha who's supposed to show up some day and show us all the True Dharma. What we have here is the Theosophical Maitreya, which is a variation on the Buddhist one.

(A bizarre variation, but Theosophy is pretty wacky. It's also historically important, playing a big role in uniting Buddhism and bringing it to the attention of the West in the late nineteenth century, and also in kicking off what developed into Neopaganism.)

There's a saying in Buddhism, "If you see the Buddha on the side of the road; kill him!"

That's Zen, which -- despite its strong impact on the Western view of Buddhism -- is really a small part of Buddhism. Many, if not most, Buddhists follow some sort of devotional path where they believe that some Buddha or Bodhisattva will come down and give good little boys and girls a ride to Candyland.

Sure, that's in contradiction to what (we think) the Buddha actually taught...but then, Jesus didn't say "if you don't work you don't eat", and Mohammad explicitly forbid the killing of women and children, so it's not like the Buddha is the only one whose legacy has been twisted.

The point of this article is to discuss the reform in a constructive manner, not to bash entire ideologies just because they are not your own.

Obviously, you've never seen a single hour of Fox. Imagine several schizophrenic paranoid white men, who are afraid of gays, Mexicans, muslims, the poor (that's code for minorities), hate equality, love war, and instead of using a values system as a starting point for their worldview, they start out with a worldview and then selectively apply their values system in nonsensical rants. Give them an audience and editors and producers that only care about ratings and pushing ideology handed directly to them from GOP and other ultra-conservative sources.

Now pretend that it's news so people think they are using journalistic standards, when in fact they are simply opinion shows.

All of the media outlets are rather stupid. Fox News is dangerously delusional.

I would not recommend buying a Mac - I bought one because that is the only way to develop for the iPhone/iPod Touch (still haven't gotten around too it). It is true Mac offers little options.

Limiting choices is something Apple does on purpose and for a reason:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265499/march-04-2010/barry-schwartz
or
http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005688

In fact, it's almost what the OP sounds like he wants, but then again, he could be buying any prebuilt. I always thought the CPU market was getting too complicated for the layperson, coming from a time when you could just look at a Pentium and judge it based on MHz.

Beyond RAM, very few people actually upgrade their computers, they'll just buy a new one every 4-5 years. If I had to upgrade beyond RAM/HARD_DRIVE, I usually don't myself -- whatever still fits in the old socket isn't a big enough bump anyway, replacing the motherboard can give a good speed increase but that means getting the ram to match it, as well as a CPU, and you're well on your way to a new computer. Gamers might opt for a new video card, but few people beyond that segment actually push theirs.

And for many people, the savings just don't equate to the time spent on all this crap. And often, if you're already a computer oriented person, what you learn is relevant in only such a short frame of time, it's not even much of an educational lesson.

These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report. So, with the New York Times going to a pay site, it just means that none of the aforementioned sites that I keep an eye on will link to them anymore, so they'll eventually die off. The same thing happened with the Wall Street Journal, too -- they're not even on my radar anymore (Thanks, Rupert!)

So... you get all your news from comedy sources and _this_ crowd? Sure, that makes sense. I'm sure you're super well-informed.

These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report

I hesitate to suggest that that's not the most balanced reading/viewing list...

These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report. So, with the New York Times going to a pay site, it just means that none of the aforementioned sites that I keep an eye on will link to them anymore, so they'll eventually die off. The same thing happened with the Wall Street Journal, too -- they're not even on my radar anymore (Thanks, Rupert!)

This guy is just absolutely nuts. Biggest Luddite I've ever seen.

I'm also fairly certain that they can throw out anybody they want, as long as they do not single out protected groups.

Yep. Check out this 5 minute clip. Hope it works outside of the us copyright zone...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/254666/november-03-2009/nailed--em---mormon-church-trespassing

Maybe it was designed by the people who did recovery.gov.

As an aside, how do you not notice the web site you're designing has 875 congressional districts when there are only 435?

Chris Mooney interviewed earlier on The Colbert Report about the importance of science. Funny, tragic, effective.

Indeed. There are few things that bother the establishment more than the idea of holding the powerful accountable for their actions.

Made a post on the colbertnation boards about it yesterday, apparently I now have Hero status.

http://forum.colbertnation.com/tcr/board/message?board.id=Stephen&thread.id=3108

People read the Bible?

I thought it was polar bears that we had to worry about?

Take that Colbert! America's assburg isn't such a bad place now, is it?

Disclaimer: Technically I live 30mi north of America's assburg. Maybe that's why I'm happy.

I'd like to watch this show, but I don't have cable. It's very nice that they have full episodes available on Colbert Nation. However, is there any way to watch the show online Tuesday night? Does anyone know how long they wait before putting that night's show onto the web?

Hulu.com usually has it online by 1 am pacific

I'd like to watch this show, but I don't have cable. It's very nice that they have full episodes available on Colbert Nation. However, is there any way to watch the show online Tuesday night? Does anyone know how long they wait before putting that night's show onto the web?

There's no technical reason restricting Twitter from allowing 140 rather than 160 characters, unless there's an issue I am not aware of (perhaps one or more major mobile networks are broken and only allow 140 characters rather than 140 bytes?).

20 are reserved for the user name. The co-founder mentioned this during his interview on The Colbert nation.

I don't think the distinction between the people voting for Serenity and Colbert is as sharp as you suggest. "Serenity" was the the name of the ship from Joss Whedon's Firefly TV show and Serenity movie, and his fans conducted an organizing voting campaign of their own. At any rate Stephen is a huge science/NASA geek and an all-around mensch, so I'm certain he's going to be thrilled no matter what NASA decides to do even as "Stephen" throws his outrage around like a monkey's feces. Check out this episode to see the real Stephen's love of space travel seep into his interview with an astronaut on the ISS. Personally, Joss and Stephen are perhaps my two favorite television types ever, so I'm also happy with the outcome, whatever it may be.

Yes, it looks like 4chan was behind Xenu. And we have to thank them, otherwise this hilarious video wouldn't have happened: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220648/march-04-2009/space-module--colbert---scientology-s-new-galactic-overlord

Welcome our new Galactic Overlord Colbert.

First it was a bridge and now a space station.

A wide selection of computing fossils be used in Applegate's final musical presentation,

Ok, who was the wiseass who invited the RNC to start writing /. summaries?

The Elitist Menace Among Us

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/173088/june-10-2008/the-elitist-menace-among-us

""Unlike a trial transcript, the broadcast of a court proceedings through the Internet will take on a life of its own in that forum. The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual,""

Oh, I get it now. So, what they're basically saying is, they do NOT want someone to use snippets of RIAA trial lawyers in the courtroom to put together a dance club video mix with a "pumping k-hole groove". (Cue Stephen Colbert)

You insensitive clod I get my news from TV haven't you heard of the Colbert Report

How many people are injured every day by packaging?

According to this article, about 200,000 in 2001. (That's about 550/day.)

Colbert had a great but brief segment a while back (0:55).

Perhaps this is more applicable: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/the-word---wikiality

Come on folks we all know that were the Colbert Nation leads the world follows. All this is saying is that politics these days is about Truthiness which is "Truth that comes from the gut, not from books". Back in 2005 Colbert was right.

His latest campaign is that we don't even want answers and should not be allowed to ask questions.

Its very sad how the two best political commentary programmes in the US go out on Comedy Central.

Come on folks we all know that were the Colbert Nation leads the world follows. All this is saying is that politics these days is about Truthiness which is "Truth that comes from the gut, not from books". Back in 2005 Colbert was right.

His latest campaign is that we don't even want answers and should not be allowed to ask questions.

Its very sad how the two best political commentary programmes in the US go out on Comedy Central.

Sounds like Gorlock screwed up again.

(Seemed like the obvious connection between the parent post and grandparent post.)

I would've liked to have seen one of the ultimate wielder of light sabres standing in front of a green screen myself...

This is just the latest example of the increasing trend of wrist violence...support wrist violence awareness now with your WristStrong Bracelet! In addition to getting in on some geeky humor, you are also contributing to a good cause.

Well, at least one moderator gets the joke, but there's a lot of whoosh going on here.

(hint)

Conservatives are more often the target of ad hominem or source-based dismissals but that did not come out of thin air. In 6 years of straight conservative Republican rule we've seen an unprecedented attack on objective, fact-based discussion and governance. From teaching biology to studying the Earth to our own intelligence services, there has been a clear trend. I mean, it's strong enough to have generated a hit show dedicated solely to mocking it out, and a whole new word.

Liberal sources do it too but the fact of the matter is that when they do it, it is powerless and meek. But there's something about having it rammed down our throat by our government that over-sensitizes even moderates.

It's like conservatives want things both ways--they want to be in total power, but they also want the victim's position of being unfairly targetted and discriminated against. Sorry, life is not fair. When you're running the show you're going to garner more attention. If you want the victims' empowerment you have to first be an actual victim.