I remember a Tim Russert who insisted in open court that his personal journalistic philosophy was that, when talking to a public official, anything that was said was implicitly off the record unless that public official said that it could go on the record, explicitly. A journalist with a belief structure? Oh noes!
I remember a Tim Russert who adamantly refused to testify during the Libby trial, who refused to testify against a source who had committed treason against the United States (according to George HW Bush), a Russert who privileged his own journalistic access to the nation's elites over the interests of the people his journalism was meant to serve. Seems to me he did testify, regardless of his wishes that you speak about, and was one of the star witnesses. I'm not gonna give you specific links because there's tons of articles on it since he was on the stand for a few days as I remember. Most people think that it was really Cheney's mistake, maybe that's the reason Russert didn't want to testify. Let's also not forget that the same guy who you say thought Libby committed treason commuted his sentence, so your argument there holds very little water in my opinion.
I remember a Russert who, in 2004, basically rolled over for the President. I don't remember any "hardballs"; I remember a craven submission to the bamboozlement of an administration he, along with the rest of his Beltway buddies, allowed to lie to us for years. Name for me one scheduled interview on a nationally televised news show (not a debate) where the moderator of the show was not required to submit his questions to the President before-hand and where he could deviate from those questions. Russert had a pre-approved sheet of questions to ask. Know what happens if it doesn't go exactly that way? The interview is done, and the moderator will likely never get another interview like it from anyone. Like Bush would have stepped in any piles anyway. What color is the sky in your village?
I remember a Tim Russert who the Bush administration knew was a sympathetic media outlet to their talking points, a Tim Russert whose "Meet the Press" was a preferred venue because, in the words of a top Cheney aide, they could "control the message." See the above.
I can't for the life if me imagine how you remember Russert as some kind of dogged truth-seeker who stuck politicians to the sticking place. Those of us who were paying attention to his show know that Russert was at the head of the destruction of American journalism; the leader of an abdication of their responsibilities as the Fifth Estate.
If that was true you would not have known his name or been able to cite your misrepresented examples. If that was true you would not have been "paying attention to his show," you would have written it off as all the other kook fringers have. If you cared about the Fifth Estate you would have realized that having standards is what got him to where he was, that protecting sources is one of the most important things a reporter can do, and his show would not have been on the network air with all the supposed anti-Bush fervor that you guys claim is out there (and it really is).
You've done nothing but to prove yourself wrong with your own examples. Shame on you for not having a better point when choosing to post your tripe.
Alright, the stats also said that the soldier's rocklauncher heals people and that the Heavy punches for something like 900 damage per fist. Stats can be made to prove anything, 75% of all people know this.
Last I had heard was that they were suing each other, but still wanted to be partners. Vivendi was suing Valve because Vivendi felt lied to about the popularity of Steam, and Valve was suing Vivendi over some deal Vivendi had with cybercafes where they were doing leasing on the original Valve games... something like that. I hadn't heard any updates on either of those topics, so I figured they just got settled out of court.
See... this is kind of what I was saying. Maybe you aren't old enough to understand English. The deterioration of our rights? Mean anything to ya? Pfft... you're so condescending you can't even realize that you're arguing my point for me.
Are... are you new here? Do you not see the stories every single day about the breakdown of basic rights? No, you're right, this is not that big of a deal, but in the greater sense my question still stands: When is enough?
Take a chill and look at the bigger picture before you spout off. You can make a point without being a dickhole.
I was listening on the radio to someone talking about how Americans don't protest anymore, and we're being taken advantage of because of it. This shit would not have flown 20 years ago. 20 years ago we would have gone to the streets and demanded the head of Bush, Cheney, or whomever we thought was responsible for the deterioration of our rights. I wonder, what's the last straw? When will everyone else stand up and say that this shit is too much?
Sure, that may have been the way it WAS 10 years ago, but we're talking now, and getting past that stigma will let you realize that three of the most popular gaming companies in the world are owned or in partnership with much larger companies. Valve is owned by Vivendi, Bungie used to be partnered with Microsoft, and BioWare is currently partnering with Microsoft.
Now, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, because all you'd have to do is look back at Rareware and their Nintendo ownership before you see your corporate overlord strawman, but Rareware also released some of the most popular and innovative games during its partnership with Nintendo - Goldeneye, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong Country, Blast Corps, etc... The basic "evil" that came out of that deal was that they were supposedly not allowed to develop their own IPs, that's what they said anyway. So what'd they do when they broke away from Nintendo? They released Viva Pinata and whatever the fuck their other 360 flop was.
No, the mergers and partnerships of today are more like the big company helping the little company than it was back in the day. Microsoft shoveled money to Bungie, Vivendi shoveled money to Blizzard, and the resulting games are better for the money that was dished out and the lack of influence the bigger company exerted.
The hostile takeover is a thing of the past when it comes to companies in the public eye. How many people do you know who won't buy another EA game because they keep buying out their competitors (Madden is the only NFL game)? I know many.
He's Emo. Anything that turns a profit is bad, especially if it turns a profit partially because of a merger with a larger company, even where the larger company mostly stays out of the way. You see the same thing with Halo and the Bungie and Microsoft partnership. People think that Bungie lost its way after Halo 1 because of the merger, when it's more appropriate that Microsoft just wanted to secure the stability of a company that had created the flagship program.
He probably still thinks Ultima Online would be successful were it not for EA's influence, when the truth is that EA kept UO alive.
Heh. I'll give you those answers the next time I see you on Steam. I'm more worried about how long it's going to be before they release the Pyro Achievement Pak.
I thought this wouldn't apply until I learned that the judge in this case had the last name of Reebdoog and kept saying "My name is Azuza and I am a hunter..."
...being pro-democrat. They're the party of minimum wage, government healthcare, government controlled social security, and overall big government.
I agree with everything except for "big government." The past 8 years squandered a budget surplus, got us into two pseudo-wars that we can't afford, took away more rights from citizens to protect them, and walked over the constitution with a senate that won't do it's part of the whole "checks and balances." I think if that's not what the republicans were about, then they have done a horrible job of showing it the past 8 years.
I think that falls under the Dilbert principle of becoming irreplaceable; if he were actually good at being a senator then we'd want to keep him there. Since he's not, he should be allowed to fail upward, just the same as anyone else =)
So there's no use? Good, glad we got that figured out.
I'd love to hear your take on the RIAA adding money to their judgments based on money that they projected they may make or sales lost, because arguing that this funding may be useful in the future is a lot like that argument. Somehow I don't think you're the type to side with the RIAA, eventhough this argument is exactly the same as theirs.
Oh, absolutely, I encourage them to have varying opinions, but it's how they express it that I'd like to see changed. This is my schtick... somehow I feel wronged in some way and I protest by making points that nobody cares about.
You can disagree with me on the subject of poor moderation, but it'd be nice for you to have examples to back up your claim. As it stands now, I'll just wait for you to get mod points so you can mark me down instead of actually having a point =)
So, I read this and I think to myself, "Hey, this guy has a point." Then I see that he's been labeled Flamebait, meaning that there's a good possibility that there really is a good use for the research that is or isn't being funded, so I'm driven to read on to find out exactly how I and the AC were wrong and what good uses there are. Aside from penis enlargement, there apparently aren't any uses, or people don't want to "feed the troll" by actually answering the question.
Call it a strawman or whatever you want to make yourself feel better, but until someone actually has a REAL answer, I'd consider the person who dropped the Flamebait mod pretty embarassing myself.
This is what happens when you give people mod points and say you have 3 or 5 or however many days to spend them. It's like giving an 8 year-old $10 and turning them lose in the candy store. You're not going to get any change back, and they sure as hell didn't think most of their decisions through, but you can really only blame yourself for being dumb enough to give the kid the money in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
If that was true you would not have known his name or been able to cite your misrepresented examples. If that was true you would not have been "paying attention to his show," you would have written it off as all the other kook fringers have. If you cared about the Fifth Estate you would have realized that having standards is what got him to where he was, that protecting sources is one of the most important things a reporter can do, and his show would not have been on the network air with all the supposed anti-Bush fervor that you guys claim is out there (and it really is).
You've done nothing but to prove yourself wrong with your own examples. Shame on you for not having a better point when choosing to post your tripe.
Alright, the stats also said that the soldier's rocklauncher heals people and that the Heavy punches for something like 900 damage per fist. Stats can be made to prove anything, 75% of all people know this.
I hate to promote an AC, but that was funny.
/signed... except it was V8 for me
Congratulations on using "In soviet Russia..." joke without getting tagged off-topic.
Last I had heard was that they were suing each other, but still wanted to be partners. Vivendi was suing Valve because Vivendi felt lied to about the popularity of Steam, and Valve was suing Vivendi over some deal Vivendi had with cybercafes where they were doing leasing on the original Valve games... something like that. I hadn't heard any updates on either of those topics, so I figured they just got settled out of court.
See... this is kind of what I was saying. Maybe you aren't old enough to understand English. The deterioration of our rights? Mean anything to ya? Pfft... you're so condescending you can't even realize that you're arguing my point for me.
Now THAT'S the way you question word usage! =)
Are... are you new here? Do you not see the stories every single day about the breakdown of basic rights? No, you're right, this is not that big of a deal, but in the greater sense my question still stands: When is enough?
Take a chill and look at the bigger picture before you spout off. You can make a point without being a dickhole.
I was listening on the radio to someone talking about how Americans don't protest anymore, and we're being taken advantage of because of it. This shit would not have flown 20 years ago. 20 years ago we would have gone to the streets and demanded the head of Bush, Cheney, or whomever we thought was responsible for the deterioration of our rights. I wonder, what's the last straw? When will everyone else stand up and say that this shit is too much?
Sure, that may have been the way it WAS 10 years ago, but we're talking now, and getting past that stigma will let you realize that three of the most popular gaming companies in the world are owned or in partnership with much larger companies. Valve is owned by Vivendi, Bungie used to be partnered with Microsoft, and BioWare is currently partnering with Microsoft.
Now, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, because all you'd have to do is look back at Rareware and their Nintendo ownership before you see your corporate overlord strawman, but Rareware also released some of the most popular and innovative games during its partnership with Nintendo - Goldeneye, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong Country, Blast Corps, etc... The basic "evil" that came out of that deal was that they were supposedly not allowed to develop their own IPs, that's what they said anyway. So what'd they do when they broke away from Nintendo? They released Viva Pinata and whatever the fuck their other 360 flop was.
No, the mergers and partnerships of today are more like the big company helping the little company than it was back in the day. Microsoft shoveled money to Bungie, Vivendi shoveled money to Blizzard, and the resulting games are better for the money that was dished out and the lack of influence the bigger company exerted.
The hostile takeover is a thing of the past when it comes to companies in the public eye. How many people do you know who won't buy another EA game because they keep buying out their competitors (Madden is the only NFL game)? I know many.
He's Emo. Anything that turns a profit is bad, especially if it turns a profit partially because of a merger with a larger company, even where the larger company mostly stays out of the way. You see the same thing with Halo and the Bungie and Microsoft partnership. People think that Bungie lost its way after Halo 1 because of the merger, when it's more appropriate that Microsoft just wanted to secure the stability of a company that had created the flagship program.
He probably still thinks Ultima Online would be successful were it not for EA's influence, when the truth is that EA kept UO alive.
Heh. I'll give you those answers the next time I see you on Steam. I'm more worried about how long it's going to be before they release the Pyro Achievement Pak.
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I'm disappointed if that is too obscure for Slashdot.
I thought this wouldn't apply until I learned that the judge in this case had the last name of Reebdoog and kept saying "My name is Azuza and I am a hunter..."
...needs classification badly
...being pro-democrat. They're the party of minimum wage, government healthcare, government controlled social security, and overall big government.
I agree with everything except for "big government." The past 8 years squandered a budget surplus, got us into two pseudo-wars that we can't afford, took away more rights from citizens to protect them, and walked over the constitution with a senate that won't do it's part of the whole "checks and balances." I think if that's not what the republicans were about, then they have done a horrible job of showing it the past 8 years.
Why would you call Obama a tarbab- oooh, tarball! Wow, that was almost embarassing for both of us. I'll just hit the back button and-
I think that falls under the Dilbert principle of becoming irreplaceable; if he were actually good at being a senator then we'd want to keep him there. Since he's not, he should be allowed to fail upward, just the same as anyone else =)
Is it secure or just doesn't have a big enough market share for anyone to care to try? I always get those two confused.
So there's no use? Good, glad we got that figured out.
I'd love to hear your take on the RIAA adding money to their judgments based on money that they projected they may make or sales lost, because arguing that this funding may be useful in the future is a lot like that argument. Somehow I don't think you're the type to side with the RIAA, eventhough this argument is exactly the same as theirs.
Oh, absolutely, I encourage them to have varying opinions, but it's how they express it that I'd like to see changed. This is my schtick... somehow I feel wronged in some way and I protest by making points that nobody cares about.
You can disagree with me on the subject of poor moderation, but it'd be nice for you to have examples to back up your claim. As it stands now, I'll just wait for you to get mod points so you can mark me down instead of actually having a point =)
Besides... that comedy was informative AND funny.
So, I read this and I think to myself, "Hey, this guy has a point." Then I see that he's been labeled Flamebait, meaning that there's a good possibility that there really is a good use for the research that is or isn't being funded, so I'm driven to read on to find out exactly how I and the AC were wrong and what good uses there are. Aside from penis enlargement, there apparently aren't any uses, or people don't want to "feed the troll" by actually answering the question.
Call it a strawman or whatever you want to make yourself feel better, but until someone actually has a REAL answer, I'd consider the person who dropped the Flamebait mod pretty embarassing myself.
This is what happens when you give people mod points and say you have 3 or 5 or however many days to spend them. It's like giving an 8 year-old $10 and turning them lose in the candy store. You're not going to get any change back, and they sure as hell didn't think most of their decisions through, but you can really only blame yourself for being dumb enough to give the kid the money in the first place.