I think that's a horrid part of today's political thinking... the idea that everyone has their own truth. That's B.S.
Both political parties believe that they can advance their own version of the truth. One side is worse than the other, but it's still in both parties. And that's insidious...
No.. I think he is saying that they used to be active B.S. filters. They don't do that now... they basically just are megaphones that quash coverage of anything that isn't part of their corporate agenda. I am not sure whether that quashing is active or just a factor of the fact that most of these journalists are "true believers" when it comes to the corporate-mode of thinking, but I am sure it is happening. What gets emphasized in U.S. media is so much different than what get emphasized in other media around the world (minus maybe the U.K., but they still do a better job than what we do here).
All networks are biased right now. Everyone loves to focus on the left/right bias, but if there is no real left/right bias then there is a corporate bias.
If anyone here has never read RT I would suggest you do so. I think it's safe to say *they* have a bias as well, but it's non the pro-corporate bias that every US network has.
The only standard in corporate journalism of any type (HuffPo included) is number of eyeballs sold to advertisers. People think we still see solid debate from the 4th estate... and they are completely wrong.
While I agree somewhat with that, what is closing our minds MORE than the Internet is the closing down of true debate. Right now mainstream political debate consists at two "sides" yelling talking points at one another and not acknowledging proven facts as they come to light. You don't make any progress when facts are ignored.
Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents... going in the exact opposite direction of Google which moved from only allowing Google Office documents to allowing real cloud storage of all types of files.
It's a weird direction they are going... by getting rid of iDisk they are doing the exact opposite of Google, dropbox, and everyone else.
In the 90s there was a web site that calculated the amount of money the Gates was worth (based on best available knowledge of stock holdings... an estimate) and kept track of his charity donations per year. The result was that he gave less by percentage to charity than your average single mom on food stamps.
I always felt that the Gates Foundation was partially a result of the fact that people realized the level of giving. Some amount of charity is considered imperative when you get to that level.
Of course that doesn't negate any good that it does... however what I do have problems with some of the details. No one is going to agree with someone else's SOP in toto anyway...
It's arrogance as well. There guys continuously see themselves as the "smartest people in the room" and wanking each other off as Randian "productive people" and even a multi-million or billion dollar mistake can't budge that delusional behavior.
I actually it would do a great justice to corporate governance and the whole world if we reformed corporate boards completely. I am *not* sure that other CEOs are needed or wanted on boards. At the moment corporate boards are nothing more than one tangle of conflicted interests. We need groups of shareholders that will actually hold CEOs accountable and won't force wages up just because they sit on each other's boards. The whole system as it is right now is a disgrace.
I've come to the full realization how different the libertarianism is of our revolutionary leaders and our current leaders. They are practically two different things. The founding father-era libertarians would NEVER advocate rights of *any* institution to equal that of a human (albeit a land-owning white human, which we've expanded upon).
If they advocate corporate rights they are corporatist and not libertarians.
With all the problems Q is probably going to have this isn't one of them. I think getting rid of extra controls and having tablets and phones directly control the TV is the next logical step and as the post above notes we're already using android/i devices to control XBMC, cable set top boxes, and who knows what else... why not go the whole way and make them how you buy the content, too.
I have to wait to see if this works in practice, but it does seem a logical step.
I am a bit of a Google fanboy and I couldn't resist putting in an order for one of the first Nexus Qs.
This is in spite of the fact that I own two Rokus (one for my main TV, one for my GoogleTV) and have an XBMC box for my main TV. It's not like I needed one. But I am interested in seeing how it works.
It is likely a device that isn't going to make it, at least if they keep it bottled up and Google doesn't let other devices access the Q. If they do keep it open I think it has a slight chance. I have no idea what the chances of that are, but why shouldn't Netflix or Hulu or any other app not be able to access it? I am sure that the DRM-meisters will come up with reasons.
As for MicroSD... did everyone here forget that the Nexus 7 is going to have host mode? Sure it is not built in, but you can use SD cards all you want.
Slashdot Mirror
CNN gets thousands of posts on every story, but their post boards still manage to be the latrine of the Internet.
About 60% are "Obama is hitler" or otherwise "LIBURAL OMG!@!!@" posts.
About 35% are posts about how the BHO posts are idiotic.
About 2% are on topic.
I think that's a horrid part of today's political thinking... the idea that everyone has their own truth. That's B.S.
Both political parties believe that they can advance their own version of the truth. One side is worse than the other, but it's still in both parties. And that's insidious...
No.. I think he is saying that they used to be active B.S. filters. They don't do that now... they basically just are megaphones that quash coverage of anything that isn't part of their corporate agenda. I am not sure whether that quashing is active or just a factor of the fact that most of these journalists are "true believers" when it comes to the corporate-mode of thinking, but I am sure it is happening. What gets emphasized in U.S. media is so much different than what get emphasized in other media around the world (minus maybe the U.K., but they still do a better job than what we do here).
All networks are biased right now. Everyone loves to focus on the left/right bias, but if there is no real left/right bias then there is a corporate bias.
If anyone here has never read RT I would suggest you do so. I think it's safe to say *they* have a bias as well, but it's non the pro-corporate bias that every US network has.
The only standard in corporate journalism of any type (HuffPo included) is number of eyeballs sold to advertisers. People think we still see solid debate from the 4th estate... and they are completely wrong.
While I agree somewhat with that, what is closing our minds MORE than the Internet is the closing down of true debate. Right now mainstream political debate consists at two "sides" yelling talking points at one another and not acknowledging proven facts as they come to light. You don't make any progress when facts are ignored.
I disagree. As long as the code isn't copied then if it accomplishes the same goal then who cares.
That's the way the market is *supposed* to work.
Give all your data to them! You can *always* trust a multinational corporation to do the right thing!
Except that they are retiring "real" cloud storage like iDisk and only allowing documents... going in the exact opposite direction of Google which moved from only allowing Google Office documents to allowing real cloud storage of all types of files.
It's a weird direction they are going... by getting rid of iDisk they are doing the exact opposite of Google, dropbox, and everyone else.
Well.. it's better than reading the idiot comments about it on Twitter...
Would you like to have 1% of a billion dollars?
You should work out that math.
It involves money, not engineering most likely.
Keep sending the checks... we'd hate to see that nice code get broken...
In the 90s there was a web site that calculated the amount of money the Gates was worth (based on best available knowledge of stock holdings... an estimate) and kept track of his charity donations per year. The result was that he gave less by percentage to charity than your average single mom on food stamps.
I always felt that the Gates Foundation was partially a result of the fact that people realized the level of giving. Some amount of charity is considered imperative when you get to that level.
Of course that doesn't negate any good that it does... however what I do have problems with some of the details. No one is going to agree with someone else's SOP in toto anyway...
Both the Holy Grail and Baghdad Bob...
"I'm not dead yet... I'm happpeeeeeeee!"
It's a poorly understood fact that any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over.
It's arrogance as well. There guys continuously see themselves as the "smartest people in the room" and wanking each other off as Randian "productive people" and even a multi-million or billion dollar mistake can't budge that delusional behavior.
I actually it would do a great justice to corporate governance and the whole world if we reformed corporate boards completely. I am *not* sure that other CEOs are needed or wanted on boards. At the moment corporate boards are nothing more than one tangle of conflicted interests. We need groups of shareholders that will actually hold CEOs accountable and won't force wages up just because they sit on each other's boards. The whole system as it is right now is a disgrace.
A great number of people in the U.S. equate success and wealth. It's pretty sad...
I've come to the full realization how different the libertarianism is of our revolutionary leaders and our current leaders. They are practically two different things. The founding father-era libertarians would NEVER advocate rights of *any* institution to equal that of a human (albeit a land-owning white human, which we've expanded upon).
If they advocate corporate rights they are corporatist and not libertarians.
Then it is not "property."
When property is sold right of first sale applies. It's not "property," you better make up a new term.
It's typical whiney super-corporations wanting it both ways. They don't care if they have hypocritical reasoning as long as they get what they want.
I run my laptop with a stationary bike.
With all the problems Q is probably going to have this isn't one of them. I think getting rid of extra controls and having tablets and phones directly control the TV is the next logical step and as the post above notes we're already using android/i devices to control XBMC, cable set top boxes, and who knows what else... why not go the whole way and make them how you buy the content, too.
I have to wait to see if this works in practice, but it does seem a logical step.
I am a bit of a Google fanboy and I couldn't resist putting in an order for one of the first Nexus Qs.
This is in spite of the fact that I own two Rokus (one for my main TV, one for my GoogleTV) and have an XBMC box for my main TV. It's not like I needed one. But I am interested in seeing how it works.
It is likely a device that isn't going to make it, at least if they keep it bottled up and Google doesn't let other devices access the Q. If they do keep it open I think it has a slight chance. I have no idea what the chances of that are, but why shouldn't Netflix or Hulu or any other app not be able to access it? I am sure that the DRM-meisters will come up with reasons.
As for MicroSD... did everyone here forget that the Nexus 7 is going to have host mode? Sure it is not built in, but you can use SD cards all you want.