Slashdot Mirror

Japan is a country in which "truth" means nothing.

They can say that the "experiment" they carried out in their whaling exercises are for "scientific research" but all of us know that the whale meat that you can get in many sushi restaurant inside Japan came from those whaling "experiments".

And the whales are *NOT* the only animal that they killed. They kill dolphins too !

You do not have to believe me, just click on the following link to find out what them Japanese are doing ...

http://www.linktv.org/about/bl...

They contain mercury which gradually leaks out. Mercury is a toxic metal. And it's almost impossible to dispose of properly even if still unbroken. You can't just throw these things in the trash. I live in Massachusetts. The only recycling center is a single Home Depot in Pittsfield. I live in Andover. If I had to properly dispose of this hazardous waste, I'd have to drive 150 miles to do it. There's a good video about how Germany phased out incandescent bulbs. In turned into a classic clusterfuck. They didn't think of safety concerns or the claims of their supposed efficiency. Here's the link: http://www.linktv.org/programs/in-focus-toxic-light-the-dark-side-of-energy-saving-light-bulbs

Nah bigoted, you cherry pick the few bad apples and use them to paint every muslim as evil.

Keep telling yourself that when they start imposing Sharia law in your neighbourhood.

While the video is dramatic, it's designed to be that way. RT (Russia Today) is that State's answer to Fox News here in the U.S.

Al-Jazeera just had a story about RT that you can watch here: http://news.linktv.org/videos/russia-today-news-channel-or-propaganda-tool.

(Yes, I recognize that we're talking about two separate non-U.S. news companies here, but feel free to watch the video.)

[Captcha: scandal]

I was watching a recent documentary which showed, during a series of political 'training' sessions in DC, people being advised by the trainer to go on to Amazon and negatively review books (from a different political perspective) which they had never read. The speaker mentioned that it was something he did quite often in his spare time.
I also hate it when a book gets a negative or positive review because of 'shipping time' or something that has nothing to do with the content of the work itself.

I get al-Jazerra from LINK TV and MHZ in Washington and Philadelphia via antenna television (free). Probably other locations as well. And they show Chinese daily news in the original mandarin

http://www.linktv.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHz_Worldview

"Most of us try to do exactly as you suggest when speaking with laymen, but there are two problems with this approach: 1. We are so used to thinking "in jargon" that we use it just as we use everyday language. We unconsciously assume people understand certain words or ideas, because with think about them all the time"

But this is exactly why there needs to be a science of "communicating science" to others who will never have the education. I think scienceo of propaganda and the psychology of persuasion should be used to maximum effect quite frankly, human beings are not rational creatures. There is an excellent video here, if you skip to about 18:20 in the video and watch till about 25 (when you have the time all the videos aren't too bad). But most scientists suffer from the enlightenments view of reason.

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

"I believe you meant to use the word "affect". It's possible you're grammar trolling [xkcd.com],"

Actually it's a common unconscious mistake, and has to do with the way someones mind organizes memories. You should do a little research on neurology, the grammar and spelling nazi's need to bone up on science and lay off when someone makes a mistake, they should try to understand *the science* behind why such mistakes are made, then one stops being a retard and *understands* why these things occur and that it was *unintentional*.

When you see missing words, garbled grammar/sentences similar sounding words affect/effect, their/there, etc, this has to do with memory error retrieval do to how the brain stores and organizes words and information.

This means that their are issues with noise and signals getting dropped when sent to the motor neurons/nervous system and the user does not know they occured, since he did send consciously intend the thing in his mind but the unconscious systems did not retrieve or send all the data properly.

Most thought is unconscious, you and many others like you still suffer from the enlightenment fallacy:

http://www.linktv.org/programs/orwell_deceiving

See here, watch the video from 15 mintues in to ~24-30 minute mark, also the rest of the videos there are interesting when you get the time, I forget which video it is and when the time is but they show a newscaster making a "freudian slip" and they go on to explain why those errors happen to begin with and why they are so common.

Also some books for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/0380726475

http://www.amazon.com/Molecule-Metaphor-Neural-Language-Bradford/dp/0262062534

It will make you see human errors and human reasoning in a whole new way.

"The point is, games have rules. Once you've learned the rules, you're unstoppable."

There is an enormous difference though, the computer doesn't have any of the deficiencies of the human mind to get in the way. Most human beings 'wing it', most thought is 98% unconscious, therefore most of the time what you are testing how good someones unconscious processing is.

You'll probably find the following interesting:

(Quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg

(Longer version)
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

To get to the good part, watch from 15 minute mark to ~25:00

Emotion and rational thought cannot ever be disconnected from one another, most people are unaware of what the cognitive sciences have discovered in the last 30 years. The elightenments/western view of science and reason right now is being undermined by the cognitive sciences, and many in the cognitive sciences are well aware of this fact.

(Quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg

(Longer version)
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

(to get to the good part, watch from 15 to 25 mins)

A few wise words from our old friend Ibn...

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."--Ibn al-Haytham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-haytham

I'm sorry but you're not sophisticated enough in terms of conceptualization to engage my arguments. None of what you presented touches upon the parsimony of what I have said. You don't have the background to take on the above arguments and it would take too much time to educate you on such matters.

From our knowledge, knowability requires detectability (that is connection), there is no knowability without detectability, to trying to have a disembodied entity as you suggest goes against the grain of parsimony again. Hence the most parsimonious conceptions of god being that existence and god are one and the same, and god is the substance of all that exists.

I will simply suggest you look into the nature of truth and whether you are a derived from of reality (you being a derived form), whether there is one reality, and many subdistinctions, or there are 'many', your thinking is mired in fallacies of the enlightenment reasoning which the cognitive and brain sciences have shown to be false and quite erroneous.

Quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg

(Longer version)
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

(to get to the good part, watch from 15 to 25 mins)

A few wise words from are good old friend Ibn...

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."--Ibn al-Haytham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-haytham [wikipedia.org]

... because it challenges all forms of knowledge. Math is actually an extension of philosophy, what George Boole and other mathematicians did, was they began to develop systems of logic under a mathematical style.

Most people here have no clue of what has been discovered in Cognitive linguistics in the last 30 years and it's implications for wester thought and mathematics as a whole. The mind does not use symbolic computation at all. Therefore it does not use the symbolic logic mathematicians developed over the centuries, and this has a lot of philosophical implications for math and scientific method as a whole.

For those up for it you should begin you adventues here:

What has been discovered in the neurological sciences over the last 30 years undermines the enlightenments view of reason and enlightenment's view of education., most people still operate under the enlightenment's view of reason:

(quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg [tinypic.com]

Longer version:
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142 [linktv.org]

Philosophy is important and is highly under-rated, those who disdain it know nothing much about it. You can tell people who are intelligent from who is not, from their opinions about philosophy and the kinds of things they know or say about it. I think Ibn Al-Haytham expresses the need to always question societies sacred dogma's.

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."--Ibn al-Haytham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-haytham [wikipedia.org]

This is what too few human beings do, they always trust in what they have been taught... when much of what they know is fraught with error. I am weary of anything I say as well as anything any other man says, that cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, I only defend what can be demonstrated.

The majority of people do not take the above view, they are overconfident in what they think they know when they hardly know anything at all.

"A little elitism is a good thing. You don't want just people making judgments in fields that they know little to nothing about."

Your comment assumes that men (elite men) have the universal capacity to separate truth from it's illusions, this is not the case. Elitism actually stems from the enlightenment fallacy, about the nature of reasoning and truth.

(Quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg

(Longer version)
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

A few wise words from are good old friend Ibn...

"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."--Ibn al-Haytham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-haytham

Elitism = bad, having people knowing how to separate truth from it's illusions = good, but NO man has a monopoly on the truth. Experts have been frequently shown to be wrong throughout history, one only has to see the history of science to know how stupid experts are. They just don't get caught until after they are dead. Notice how when we look back in time, histories "experts" look childish as knowledge advances. Lots of histories world changers were resisted, criticized, or ignored by the "elites", especially in mathematics.

George Cantor, and George boole, just to name a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cantor

"Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so counter-intuitiveâ"even shockingâ"that it encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré[3] and later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. Some Christian theologians (particularly neo-Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God,[4] on one occasion equating the theory of transfinite numbers with pantheism.[5] The objections to his work were occasionally fierce: Poincaré referred to Cantor's ideas as a "grave disease" infecting the discipline of mathematics,[6] and Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth."[7] Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory," which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong".[8] Cantor's recurring bouts of depression from 1884 to the end of his life were once blamed on the hostile attitude of many of his contemporaries,[9]..."

One could write entire volumes about the errors in reasoning and mistakes of the "elite" throughout history, the truth is hard, and no one has a monopoly on the truth. Therefore we should all be careful about being dogmatic about anything, and not tie our identities up with what we think we know, because as knowledge advances new information will likely upset our current conceptions of what we accept as truth or not truth.

The problem goes deeper then that, the author comes across to me as missing the deep links between religion, gossip, and ideology -- that they trump the facts every time.

That religious or slopping thinking is the standard for all human beings, even science is subject to the same sloppy thinking they accuse creationists and other "nonscience" disciplines, peoples and opinions of and hence the dire need for peer review, criticism, and understanding, etc.

But the truth is, all truths people think are true are riddled with errors and misconceived ideas based on flawed understandings that pass as "true" during the historical period and culture in which the people exist. Cognitive science has shown that sciences understanding of truth and objectivity is deeply flawed also, science has shown the enlightenment's ideas about science and reasoning are deeply flawed also.

Most people and scientists don't even have a clue what has been discovered in the neurological sciences over the last 30 years and how it undermines the enlightenment's view of reason and enlightenment's view of education. Most people still operate under the enlightenment's view of reason

(quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg [tinypic.com]

Longer version:
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142 [linktv.org]

Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever, and despite wikipedia's flaws, the fact that the internet exists and "anti wikipedia" sites exist, allow us to balance it's shortcomings through open criticism.

But you have to realize that this is a fundamental human problem for every human being, regardless of status, class, intellect, or education, many of histories brightest minds were horribly wrong in enormous ways about other things. Look at Newton for instance and the amount he wrote concerning religion, etc.

(site for those interested)
http://www.isaac-newton.org/

Socrates showed a long time ago that all knowledge and claims to morals and truth is political. The truth is political, hence the phrase:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --George Orwell

"So yeah, I'm exceedingly opposed to letting anyone like Buffett or Soros run anything in the government. They already manipulate it now to their benefit and get rich off tax and bailout bills, so the last thing they need is to be made a "benevolent dictator"."

Soros and buffet are nowhere near in the same league, I've met Mr Soros personally and I can tell you he is not in the same league as your typical billionaire in the slightest. He set up conferences in how the political process of america is manipulated, see here: http://www.linktv.org/programs/orwell_deceiving

He publishes books constantly criticizing the the deficiencies of the capitalist system. (Just google or search on amazon for his name) and he also funds the soros foundation that has done a hell of a lot of good for people in the world and in america - http://www.soros.org/

Just because a person is rich doesn't mean that they are all about money, nor does it mean they are perfect. If you've actually watched interviews of Mr Soros or read any of his books and researched into the man, you'd get a much better picture then the superficial version and vague notions that he is just "some greedy rich dude". People should read some of his books and actually research before they smear a man you know nothing about. He is not perfect, but no one is, and since america is all about hyper belief in capitalism. Americans deserve to get the real world capitalism good and hard - they deserve to get the ideals they worship - greed, status, beauty, hyper individualism and being rich, and therefore deserve a bunch of rich people who believe greed is good ruling them.

If the american people want change they should be ignoring the law, outright revolting and going after these people with mob justice. It is astounding how ignorant most people are of history. Oswald spenglers decline of the west should be required reading for every student before they enter the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

Oswald knew the only thing that can counter greed and oppression of the corruption of the rich is bloodshed and lawless disobedience, like the destruction of property, the intimidation of the corrupt men in the law profession and the corrupt judges, people did this during the depression, but most people today are too comfortable, selfish and individualistic to set aside their differences and fearful for their lives to oust these people. The rich live in a world radically different and sheltered from the real world of the masses and the more distant from this world they become the more myopic and distorted their thinking and vision becomes.

"This is the major reason why we still unfortunately need paper journals. We need somebody to read it and say yes this follows basic scientific procedures and to the best of his/her knowledge there are no mistakes."

Darwin did not do any of this with the origin of the species and many scientific ideas from the past came out in lay/not overseen books for the reader. The fact that ideas are peer reviewed or not is quite irrelevant to it's truth. In fact peer review is flawed now knowing what we know about human reasoning, and the fact that reasoning is not as the enlightenment had us believe.

Most scientists don't even have a clue what has been discovered in the neurological sciences over the last 30 years and how it undermines the enlightenment's view of reason and enlightenment's view of science and education. Most people still operate under the enlightenment's false view of reason.

The enlightenment fallacy:

(quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg

Longer version:
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

FTA: "No matter what journalists say about the reliability of Wikipedia, they still use it as a resource. I have no doubt that journalists who I discussed [naked shorting] with decided not to do stories after reading Wikipedia - whose treatment [of naked short selling] was completely divorced from reality."

In order for a democracy (as well as the free market) to function, the people need to be able to make informed decisions. For that we need information. For that we need healthy press. Currently it isn't. Dan Rather agrees

"Yeah, but as a life long geek and software development major, I find that these kids are the best kind of competition. Seriously, I know a bunch of kids that just don't have a passion for CS, and I can run circles around them just from experiences I've had messing around as a kid."

Have you ever considered most kids don't have access to an environment that allows them to grow? Have you ever considered their talents will bloom with age? i.e. is their mind ripe for the task at hand, in terms of development and maturity?

When I was a kid I needed guidance, I wasted a lot of years because the place I grew up was a small town filled with christian fundies, not the brightest bunch in the drawer. Not only that most teachers don't even have a clue what has been discovered in the neurological sciences over the last 30 years and how it undermines the enlightenments view of reason and enlightenment's view of education. Most people still operate under the enlightenment's view of reason

(quick version)
http://i35.tinypic.com/10fruxh.jpg

Longer version:
http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

This idea that kids can be forced to develop is due to mistaken ideas of how reasoning works and how people's bodies biologically develop over time. No one understands fully what reason is, and how it works, not mathematicians, not scientists, not anyone right now, that is for certain.

"When it gets to the harder subject matter (SPARC ASM, anyone?), they just can't compete unless they've got a passion for the subject. Passion will get you further than talent any day of the week."

Passion can only take you so far, a retarded kid with a lot of passion will not get to the same place as someone who hates their job but has incredible ability and can focus and keep on task.

The truth is they both matter, you have to have some amount of ability and some amount of passion. Passion can make up for some lack of ability, and ability can make up for some lack of passion.

It still comes down to discipline whether you love your job or not, what drives a person to work hard and learn.

"The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised."

This is not how people work at all, and cognitive sciences have known this for some time. Almost everyone here I imagine is still under the enlightenment's false view of reason, everyone here should watch this video. Specifically from 15 minutes in to 25 minutes.

See here:

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

"And who are you to make such a (ridiculous) claim?"

Is it really ridiculous, considering what we don't know about human reasoning and the brain? I went to a conference and neurologists and cognitive linguistics says reasoning is not well understood at all. Someone can understand something in a different way and have it totally be objective, i.e. someone may speak in terms of something else because we understand the world entirely by metaphor. See Daniel tammet for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss

How he does what he does is not understood at all, so it's not a surprise that physicists would not agree on a lot.

Also a conference on neurology/ science of propaganda

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

"What's entertaining is subjective."

I'd dispute that, I bet if we did statistical studies, evidence would emerge of a consensus of a baseline of what is considered fun vs what is not. Politics ("subjectivity") is now becoming a science in and of itself:

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

I'm sure we'll soon have a science of fun, the studies are not there yet, but I'm certain we'd find statistical consensus of what fun is, and what isn't interesting if we had many decades to do serious research.

" they even know the difference between "they're" and "their". Something most college grads seem to not know. Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education"."

The difference between "they're and their", when people MAKE the mistake. Is often a unconscious memory error. I know because I make these all the time and it has to do with the way each person's neurology stores information in memory. I will also type the wrong word for words that sound phonetically near, or exactly the same. It has nothing to do with being 'ill educated', I think everyone needs some basic courses in neurology as to why these mistakes keep creeping up in people's writing: Hint, it's not (always) because they are simply stupid, it has to do with the way information in memory is stored and organized in the brain.

The so called "fruedian slip" is more like the "storage" slip, networks of associated content are activated, boob job becomes blow job, they both begin with be, and end with job, so the mind while looking up boob, misfires and gives the man "blow". There was an excellent segment on this at orwell coming to america conference (I believe it is in, video 2)

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

See items by: George lakoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

Hist postings at the (now closed) rockridge institute

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/people/lakoff

"If people are sitting at home watching 20 hours of reality TV a week, then they have no excuse for being ill-informed."

According to actual SCIENCE they DO have an excuse, all of you who think 'the public needs ot be informed' need to see the 2nd video called Decieving images. It's the juiciest one and exposes the 'enightenment fallacy' (enlightenment view of reason), but you ALL should watch all three.

http://www.linktv.org/programs/orwell_deceiving

I'm supposed to believe that I can get any honest assessment from a site that is as rabidly Zionist as this? How about citing a source that is a bit more honest? I suggest mosaic:

http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/streamsArchive/

And by the way, since you are an insider and all, maybe you can give us the inside scoop on Dimona. Like how much weapons-grade plutonium it produces yearly? Or how many nukes Israel already possesses? Something like 100 - 200 warheads?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/dimona.htm

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain why Israel refuses to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

I'm supposed to get excited about Iran making *one* nuke, when Israel has hundreds?

And the last time that I checked, Iran wasn't attacking its neighbors, stealing their land, and ethnic cleansing. In fact, some would even call it holocaust...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3459144.ece

Shame on Israel, and shame on the USA (my country).

"You have brought nothing to the table except your "world is flat" dismissals."

Nice way to change the subject from the fact that actual numbers of media voices show that there is no media consolidation.

"When you consider that Clear Channel used to own a paltry 41 before the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and has now ballooned to over 1200 stations"

How misleading when you conveniently leave out that this is a small fraction of the total number of stations.

"but there are several others who have gobbled up television and radio stations and newspapers in markets all across the U.S."

Each of which controlls far less than what Clear Channel controls. How many do all of these control between them? 30% or 40% or something like that?

"That is media consolidation whether you want to admit it or not"

How can I "admit" something that there is no evidence for?

"The trend since 1996 has been cosolidation because the FCC relaxed the rules on how many media outlets a particular company could own. This is fact. "

The fact is that the FCC has relaxed the rules, but there has been no consolidation. Looking at the definition, "to bring together (separate parts) into a single or unified whole; unite; combine: They consolidated their three companies.", it is clear that nothing like this has happened.

From Ted Turner: "When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace"

In other words, the FCC ignored the First Amendment and meddled in the media to try to dictate preferred content. Good riddance.

From Ted Turner: "They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV."

Yet, when the FCC had much tighter control, we only had ABC,NBC,CBS. With the relaxation of control, we've had more and more new voices getting added. The "forever" domination" of those few voices is over.

From Ted Turner: "They believed in the value of competition."

And there is more such competition now than ever before. Do you want me to link to other new media voices aside from the ones I linked to above? It's like Ted had no idea what he was saying, which could be summarized as "Back when the FCC encouraged competition, we only had 3 news networks. Now we have less competition and more news networks."

"The debate here is whether or not media consolidation is happening or not"

I guess that is true. It is hardly a debate since there is no evidence of media consolidation.

"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dixie Chicks(sp?) made a comment about the president back in 2003 while on tour in London. Even though they are still around and touring, this comment cost them dearly"

Cost them? How so? Do you have any idea what cost means? They ended up more popular than ever, selling more music than ever. They are more than "still around".

"There was a corporate mandate "from on high" that dictated that none of the stations would play thier music after their comment."

Worked so WELL, didn't it? I'd never heard them on the radio before. After the Bush comment flap, I started to hear them on the radio.

" That is the kind of power media consolidation gives corporations. I'm sorry you can't understand this, but it's right there in front of your face"

What, the power to make musical artists like the Dixie Chicks more popular and more rich?

"Apparently you aren't aware of what happened to Pacifica during the 90's."

I followed this as it happened. Does not change the fact that Pacifica is a corporation.

If you haven't been hearing about the dozens of deaths reported per day, then I'm afraid you've been watching the American media (and why are they so lax about Iraqi deaths and report the American ones more?). Go read Al Jazeera or watch Mosaic TV. The death toll from the suicide bombing at a mosque has now reached 80, and there have been recent mass graves found of people killed this year, not to mention the dozens of Sunnis found executed or the dozens of Shia killed in a similiar fashion, or the outrage when the US bombed a Shia mosque. If you're finding it hard to keep up with these events, I'd recommend Informed Comment (voted best expert blog).

LinkTV has a 30-minute segment on this project I just watched the other night - http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescripti on.php4?code=dwf_brilliant/ - if you have cable or satellite and are intertested in this project, catch this program.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~tk421/music.htm

I saw this cool ass music video by Pato Fu on WorldLink TV, "Made in Japan" and this cooper thing reminds me of it. This is a damn cool video, tune to linktv and see it sometime.

Here are some great sources for news online:

Financial Times - FT a good example of actual "news reporting" (as opposed to "news creating" exhibited by most companies). As a result of the commercial influence in all aspects of society nowadays, it makes perfect sense that some of the financial news sources may now be the most objective source of information. Check out this wonderful site and newspaper.

PR Watch - This site is run by the Center for Media & Democracy is a nonprofit, public interest organization funded by individuals and nonprofit foundations and dedicated to investigative reporting on the public relations industry. The Center serves citizens, journalists and researchers seeking to recognize and combat manipulative and misleading PR practices. There is an excellent weekly newsletter you can subscribe to from this site which summarizes news stories and special issues where media coverage was manipulated.

Disinfopedia - a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. More than 2500 articles outlining information and credentials on key individuals and entities involved with public policy and other areas. This is a great resource to look up the history of people in the news.

Link TV - The first national network offering a global perspective on news, current events and culture, presenting viewpoints seldom covered in the U.S. media. We present first-run documentaries on global issues, current affairs series, international news, classic foreign feature films, and the best of world music. Link TV's programming, combined with innovative use of two-way digital link-ups and our participatory web site, deepens audience engagement and encourages active participation. If you have DirecTV, this network is channel 375 - ask your cable provider if they do not make this network available - it's worth it!

Democratic Underground - What has turned out to be a polarized web site has become a watchdog for the mainstream media, the Democratic Underground exposes the hypocrisy and sleaziness in the media. Check this site out folks -- with references (something you do not find on conservative sites)

CorpWatch - A great site for information on the nefarious activities of multinational corporations. Want to find out who's paid off whom? Which governments are under the influence of which corporations? Little-known corporate relationships that explain unusual social or political events? This is the site to check.

Adbusters - In our society it has become increasingly difficult to separate editorial from advertising and many argue there is no longer a distinction. This site addresses the social changes in how people are educated by addressing the impact of news and the advertising media and exposes the propaganda campaigns. Very good reading, and in many cases, shockingly thought-provoking!

Common Dreams News Center - Billed as "Breaking news & views for the Progressive community",
this site endeavors to carry stories that the mainstream media may either not be reporting, or not telling all sides.

Canadian Broadcast Corporation - Canada's state-owned news service is widely regarded as one of the most objective sources of information.

Independent Media Center - A good source for news stories that the mainstream doesn't pick up. This site is particularly sensitive to the influence corporate America has over what is and is

One of my favorite channels on television is LINK TV. This is available on DirecTV satellite and it's a wonderful resource of alternative news and information.

While not specifically technical in nature, this network runs a lot of documentaries and shows that the mainstream media would never show. There was a great documentary shown recently where they placed Internet Kiosks in a middle eastern country and didn't tell anyone how to use them, and observed how quickly the children learned to use the Internet and what information they sought out (another segment of the show features the developer of the Kiosks meeting with Issac Asimov and watching 2001 with him! He likened the un-explained Internet kiosk to the monolith in the movie and discussed it with Asimov).

Another great show on this network is Mosaic which is a daily news program which features excerpts from news broadcasts throughout the middle east. The video footage is much more substantive and you can almost always see an entirely different angle on the daily news stories, as well as a lot more information (and best of all, J-Lo is never mentioned).

This network is a MUST SEE channel. And had I known about it prior, it would have easily justified switching cable/sat companies.

One of my favorite channels on television is LINK TV. This is available on DirecTV satellite and it's a wonderful resource of alternative news and information.

While not specifically technical in nature, this network runs a lot of documentaries and shows that the mainstream media would never show. There was a great documentary shown recently where they placed Internet Kiosks in a middle eastern country and didn't tell anyone how to use them, and observed how quickly the children learned to use the Internet and what information they sought out (another segment of the show features the developer of the Kiosks meeting with Issac Asimov and watching 2001 with him! He likened the un-explained Internet kiosk to the monolith in the movie and discussed it with Asimov).

Another great show on this network is Mosaic which is a daily news program which features excerpts from news broadcasts throughout the middle east. The video footage is much more substantive and you can almost always see an entirely different angle on the daily news stories, as well as a lot more information (and best of all, J-Lo is never mentioned).

This network is a MUST SEE channel. And had I known about it prior, it would have easily justified switching cable/sat companies.