That brings up an interesting question. What about people who print up flyers, then walk around a parking lot sticking them under windshield wipers? After all, the cars are private property.
Or, for that matter, someone who wants to advertise babysitting, pressure-washing, or other services by putting business cards or flyers on every mailbox in a neighborhood? Heck, I constantly get unsolicited menus from Chinese restaurants on my front door, and I'd consider my front door to be private property. And then there are the occasional empty-bag-left-at-the-door canned food drives.
Is there a fundamental difference between e-mail spam and these "real world" forms of unsolicited advertisment, other than the degree to which we are annoyed by each?
Ah, yes, the rainbow level. Time it right, and you're way ahead. Time it wrong, and you've got a long fall while your buddies pass you by.... Brings back memories!
Every reporter's going to have some sort of bias, whether they admit it to themselves or not. They're only human. And the counterpoint is, the less involved they are, the less accurate their facts may be.
I'd personally rather know what a reporter's bias is up front, so I can decide for myself how many grains of salt I should take with any particular claim.
I hear this complaint a lot about American news sources, that they are "incapable of reporting from non-American perspectives". But I would put it to you that no news source can honestly claim to report news from a perspective too far removed from that of the reporters.
For example, if I want to read a straight-up unadulterated Iraqi viewpoint of the war, or the outage, or anything, I'm not going to go to Fox News, I'm going to go to an Iraqi news source. British? I'll go to the BBC, or the Telegraph, or something like that. Canadian? Well, there's a-plenty of Canadian news sources on the web.
Likewise, if I want to read American perspectives on anything, I'm not going to be reading the BBC.
In fact, I'd propose that when a news source goes too far out of their way to show "the other side", they risk covering up important truths altogether. Look at how CNN deliberately squelched stories that might make the Hussein regime look bad, all to keep their "access" to Baghdad.
It is as it is. Reporting facts is one thing, reporting "perspectives" is another. It ain't an American thing, it's a human thing.
So it's not just a matter of wiping out all those butterflies in China that are causing hurricanes by flapping their wings. Now, if I want to end these unpredictable weather cycles, I've got to wipe out all the cities, too? Sheesh, the things I go through for meteorology.
Well, more like a permanent apprentice. There's a professional theater group in my area that offers apprenticeship opportunities to non-professionals. Sometimes these apprentices are folks that want to get into the biz. Or, sometimes they're like me, they just want theater as a hobby. I've had chances to develop all sorts of useful skills: Construction, lighting control, sound, wiring, organization, memorization, and of course, public speaking. And it's a great way to meet people, too.
First rule of rational statistical analysis: Correlation != Causation
So a rise in television use happens at the same time as a rise in crime. It doesn't necessarily follow that the first caused the second. There are alternate explanations that deserve at least a second or two of consideration before we blindly accept this one.
Maybe the rise in crime is causing the rise in television use? Escapism isn't all that unusual.
Or, it could be that a third event is the cause of both. Recently, political power in Bhutan has been shifting away from the monarchy into the hands of the elected parliment, especially since the democratic reforms of 1998. People are feeling more freedom. Only with self-delusion could one assume that the people limit their tests of this new "freedom" thing to legal ways. And who's to say that the Parliment is as efficient as the Monarchy was at running criminal justice?
I tend to lean towards this last theory, myself. The "television's fault" view implies an innocent human turned into a monster by evil technology, or evil western civilization. Point the finger anywhere but the actual person doing the murdering.
I read that site. A whole bunch of suspicious fluff and no substance, no proof. I voted in the 2002 Georgia election. Those machines were secure. Very.
What these people don't take into account is that Max Cleland and Roy Barnes (the Georgia governor who was overturned by surprise) had, just before the election, offended some very powerful voting blocks in this state. Especially the teachers' unions.
Barnes had basically laid the blame for the state's education failure on the teachers, and tried to claim credit for things that happened before his time in office. Teachers didn't like that. And there are a lot of teachers that vote in this state.
Part of Cleland's loss was, I think, just from Georgians who were fed up with Barnes and the Democratic party in general. It also didn't help that Cleland had recently voted against a measure ensuring that Boy Scouts wouldn't be kicked out of public facilities rented to other private groups. That irked some folks I know. It also didn't help that both Cleland and Barnes had gotten very vicious and defensive about some of the "accusations" they claimed were coming from the Republicans. They didn't handle the race with poise and dignity. That hurt them.
This web page of yours was written by someone who just doesn't believe that the Democrats could have really lost. It's got to be the machines. It's got to be a conspiracy. When Democrats are losing power, all is not right with the world, and someone (other than the Democrat) has to be blamed.
Quite correct, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is a binding on Government.
Civil liberties are merely natural rights codified into law. If it is suicide to have possess these rights/liberties written into law as civil liberties, it would be just as much suicide to possess them as uncoded natural rights.
I'm sure I'm going somewhere with this, but I have to run, got errands that must be done this morning.... I'll think about it during the day. Or, maybe this can at least serve as a start to someone else's train of thought.
Actually, I'm becoming more and more convinced that no few countries would refuse the bake sale just to see if they can get us to offer more... while hoping we don't decide it's more to our interest to take our cake and cookies elsewhere.
So that's what this Xupiter thing is! I was visiting my family this weekend, and my sister asked me to fix her Win98 computer. IE was crashing every time she started it. I found this set of program files under this "Xupiter" directory and a bunch of load-on-startup registry items referencing them. Most of the files in this directory were locked by some running process, of course. Apparently, this Xupiter was not only self-installing but also Win98-unfriendly. And there was no uninstall program.
Restarted at DOS prompt to delete all the files. Regedit to remove every registry entry containing "Xupiter". After that, everything worked just fine, and I cranked up the security settings before I left.
Well, it's obvious the WSJ reporter didn't do the examination. Beast has blue fur (whenever the Marvel writers aren't messing with his mutation), and there's no way in the world could he be confused with Wolverine.
Slashdot Mirror
That brings up an interesting question. What about people who print up flyers, then walk around a parking lot sticking them under windshield wipers? After all, the cars are private property.
Or, for that matter, someone who wants to advertise babysitting, pressure-washing, or other services by putting business cards or flyers on every mailbox in a neighborhood? Heck, I constantly get unsolicited menus from Chinese restaurants on my front door, and I'd consider my front door to be private property. And then there are the occasional empty-bag-left-at-the-door canned food drives.
Is there a fundamental difference between e-mail spam and these "real world" forms of unsolicited advertisment, other than the degree to which we are annoyed by each?
Ah, yes, the rainbow level. Time it right, and you're way ahead. Time it wrong, and you've got a long fall while your buddies pass you by.... Brings back memories!
Every reporter's going to have some sort of bias, whether they admit it to themselves or not. They're only human. And the counterpoint is, the less involved they are, the less accurate their facts may be.
I'd personally rather know what a reporter's bias is up front, so I can decide for myself how many grains of salt I should take with any particular claim.
I hear this complaint a lot about American news sources, that they are "incapable of reporting from non-American perspectives". But I would put it to you that no news source can honestly claim to report news from a perspective too far removed from that of the reporters.
For example, if I want to read a straight-up unadulterated Iraqi viewpoint of the war, or the outage, or anything, I'm not going to go to Fox News, I'm going to go to an Iraqi news source. British? I'll go to the BBC, or the Telegraph, or something like that. Canadian? Well, there's a-plenty of Canadian news sources on the web.
Likewise, if I want to read American perspectives on anything, I'm not going to be reading the BBC.
In fact, I'd propose that when a news source goes too far out of their way to show "the other side", they risk covering up important truths altogether. Look at how CNN deliberately squelched stories that might make the Hussein regime look bad, all to keep their "access" to Baghdad.
It is as it is. Reporting facts is one thing, reporting "perspectives" is another. It ain't an American thing, it's a human thing.
So it's not just a matter of wiping out all those butterflies in China that are causing hurricanes by flapping their wings. Now, if I want to end these unpredictable weather cycles, I've got to wipe out all the cities, too? Sheesh, the things I go through for meteorology.
Great sig! First play I ever saw at the Fox Theater. :-)
I am a Master Thespian! (No jokes.)
Well, more like a permanent apprentice. There's a professional theater group in my area that offers apprenticeship opportunities to non-professionals. Sometimes these apprentices are folks that want to get into the biz. Or, sometimes they're like me, they just want theater as a hobby. I've had chances to develop all sorts of useful skills: Construction, lighting control, sound, wiring, organization, memorization, and of course, public speaking. And it's a great way to meet people, too.
First rule of rational statistical analysis:
Correlation != Causation
So a rise in television use happens at the same time as a rise in crime. It doesn't necessarily follow that the first caused the second. There are alternate explanations that deserve at least a second or two of consideration before we blindly accept this one.
Maybe the rise in crime is causing the rise in television use? Escapism isn't all that unusual.
Or, it could be that a third event is the cause of both. Recently, political power in Bhutan has been shifting away from the monarchy into the hands of the elected parliment, especially since the democratic reforms of 1998. People are feeling more freedom. Only with self-delusion could one assume that the people limit their tests of this new "freedom" thing to legal ways. And who's to say that the Parliment is as efficient as the Monarchy was at running criminal justice?
I tend to lean towards this last theory, myself. The "television's fault" view implies an innocent human turned into a monster by evil technology, or evil western civilization. Point the finger anywhere but the actual person doing the murdering.
It was feared that they would subject their measuring standard to... a weapon of mass destruction! *lame-joke rimshot!*
AOL is giving away XXX hours free? Does this mean they're giving up their family-friendly image and started marketing to pr0n-surfers?
Sorry, sorry, couldn't resist....
I read that site. A whole bunch of suspicious fluff and no substance, no proof. I voted in the 2002 Georgia election. Those machines were secure. Very.
What these people don't take into account is that Max Cleland and Roy Barnes (the Georgia governor who was overturned by surprise) had, just before the election, offended some very powerful voting blocks in this state. Especially the teachers' unions.
Barnes had basically laid the blame for the state's education failure on the teachers, and tried to claim credit for things that happened before his time in office. Teachers didn't like that. And there are a lot of teachers that vote in this state.
Part of Cleland's loss was, I think, just from Georgians who were fed up with Barnes and the Democratic party in general. It also didn't help that Cleland had recently voted against a measure ensuring that Boy Scouts wouldn't be kicked out of public facilities rented to other private groups. That irked some folks I know. It also didn't help that both Cleland and Barnes had gotten very vicious and defensive about some of the "accusations" they claimed were coming from the Republicans. They didn't handle the race with poise and dignity. That hurt them.
This web page of yours was written by someone who just doesn't believe that the Democrats could have really lost. It's got to be the machines. It's got to be a conspiracy. When Democrats are losing power, all is not right with the world, and someone (other than the Democrat) has to be blamed.
Yeah, right.
Like there's any sarcasm to be found on the web.
Indeed. In every contest between pidgeons and grubs to date, the pidgeons have clearly had the upper beak.
Excellent proof that, every time man comes out with more idiot-proof technology, evolution will produce better idiots.
Quite correct, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is a binding on Government.
Civil liberties are merely natural rights codified into law. If it is suicide to have possess these rights/liberties written into law as civil liberties, it would be just as much suicide to possess them as uncoded natural rights.
I'm sure I'm going somewhere with this, but I have to run, got errands that must be done this morning.... I'll think about it during the day. Or, maybe this can at least serve as a start to someone else's train of thought.
Actually, I'm becoming more and more convinced that no few countries would refuse the bake sale just to see if they can get us to offer more... while hoping we don't decide it's more to our interest to take our cake and cookies elsewhere.
Did my bit beceome 2 bits?
Nah, the barber's just having a promotion, shave and a haircut for half price.
Ohhh, NCR! At very first glance, I read that subject as NPR. I was thinking, they might have prior art against the majority of blogging.
Y'know, hordes of "experts" droning on about their day, and other things no one really cares about.
So that's what this Xupiter thing is! I was visiting my family this weekend, and my sister asked me to fix her Win98 computer. IE was crashing every time she started it. I found this set of program files under this "Xupiter" directory and a bunch of load-on-startup registry items referencing them. Most of the files in this directory were locked by some running process, of course. Apparently, this Xupiter was not only self-installing but also Win98-unfriendly. And there was no uninstall program.
Restarted at DOS prompt to delete all the files. Regedit to remove every registry entry containing "Xupiter". After that, everything worked just fine, and I cranked up the security settings before I left.
Holy cow!
(Sorry, sorry, I just had to milk this topic for a pun!)
Now there's an idea! Using "Mork" as a pseudonym, I'll register the domain na.GNU/nano!
Now, if I had a first-generation iMac and I could get OS X working on it, I could have PEAR on an Orange or Blueberry Apple.
Of course not. It would be simply uncatlike to be productive in any way.
Can't forget to mention that their Data is always getting scrambled, and as of the most recent movie, imperfectly copied and lost.
X-Men's Wolverine: Man or beast?
Well, it's obvious the WSJ reporter didn't do the examination. Beast has blue fur (whenever the Marvel writers aren't messing with his mutation), and there's no way in the world could he be confused with Wolverine.