No - there is an objective difference. The problem here is, what people seem to be calling a "liberal bias" is when a reporter appears to be taking a side which is disloyal to the right. Including questioning authority.
Calling authority into question is not bias.
What I call "Conservative Bias" is when facts are distorted or concealed in order to give Conservatives a free ride, and distorting facts, reporting falsehoods, and refusing to correct them when they're later found to be false, when it's convenient for conservatives and their cause, that's conservative bias.
Distorting factual information IS bias.
For example, claiming moral equivalency between covering up a blowjob while under oath, and presenting false evidence of WMD programs as being justified in order to get rid of a dictator, is not a slanted opinion. There's no equivalency there, and that's an objective fact.
Another important difference between the current GOP philosophy, and Democrat philosophy, in how it affects how differing philosophies are perceived, is in terms of whether it's underlying ethics is Teleological (outcome based) or Deontological (duty based).
(Ethicists say that both are valid, and both need to be considered in any methodology of analyzing an ethical dilemma).
Teleological ethics are concerned with the outcome of the decision or policy: how will it affect everyone involved? Is the greatest good for the greatest number of people achieved. It does not concern itself with what is morally "right" or "wrong" about the decision, as long as the outcome is good. Admittedly, this is the main driving rationale for politics on the left, and often in pursuit of an accurate cost-benefit analysis, the morality of policy is overlooked.
Deontological ethics are concerned with one's moral duties. Is the decision morally right or wrong? It does not concern itself with the outcome of the decision. This is admittedly the main driving rationale for politics on the right, and often, in pursuit of "morally perfect" policy, some poor outcomes can result.
The effective difference here, is that Democrats *DO* consider the morality of some policy decisions - for example, whether it's moral to start a war without legitimate justification. There's a balanced approach. While the current crop of Republicans simply looks at whether it was morally right to let Saddam Hussein remain in power (while ignoring the immorality of their party's past support for him) and comes to the conclusion that not only would it be immoral to let him stay in power, but it's also immoral to question the morality - thus forcing everyone into a binary choice, false dilemma - which eliminates the concept of a political spectrum. Either you're with us or against us. Damn the outcome.
It's like calling pitbull or cock fights "recreational sports".
Actually, I think that most of the debate shows are more accurately described as being close kin to what's called professional wrestling. Staged and scripted, outcome predetermined, designed to inflame, incite, entertain, but most of all, generate revenue.
Nope. I'm pretty sure it's always the Evil Business Analysts' fault. I think they're really some kind of death-cult bent on world domination or something.
Don't forget the 56 million voters who voted to re-elect Bush, despite the fact that it is common public knowledge that detainees are being mistreated, there's no WMD, and $9 Billion has been "lost" by the CPA. Those 56 million Bush voters validated all of these actions, and are equally responsible. Where's an oubliette big enough to contain them all?
CMMI is definately worth the effort. But there are no guarantees. As with level 3 and 4, even with 5, continual process improvement, you can still have a crappy process. It's not so much process improvement as process change. Yes, you have to prove with your metrics that the change is an improvement, but the difference between theory and practice is, in theory, there's no difference, but in practice there is.
But you can still get death marches, corner cutting, and all manner of engineering attrocities in a Level 5 environment. Or do you believe that everybody always follows process all the time, and never makes mistakes?
while one politician may espouse a short sighted policy that yeilds short term profits (short term tax cuts, and relaxing immigration laws), another may espouse policies that may in the short term be painful, but yeild long-term gains (such as higher taxes, funding for basic R&D). As a shareholder, I would want to voice my opinion about such strategies, to maximize my long term gain (if that's my goal) or short term gain (if I'm a pumpndumper).
Actually, I kind of like the recent proposed ballot initiative in California, that gives Union Members a checkbox on their union form, that says whether they will allow their portion of dues to be used for campaign contributions.
Though that's pretty one-sided. They should also add a law that requires all holders of stock of publicly traded companies to get a checkbox as well - their proportionate holdings in the company should give THEM a vote as to whether that company can donate to politicians as well.
(in fact, I think Boards of Directors should be done away with entirely, and shareholders should be allowed to choose vote (or abdicate) on all corporate issues, including CEO pay, etc. - - companies who don't like that can opt to not be publicly traded).
Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line?
We draw the line when we accept the reality that speech is 2-way communication. Not 1-way. Speech backed with money (ie. purchased mass advertising) reaches more recipients and therefore has more impact than speech not backed with money.
I would posit that we could let this slide if we abolished the FCC. If everyone had the right to build a transmitter to spam their campain advertisements on any and every frequency, any time they wanted, and nobody owned frequencies, then I'd say that it would be okay to let people spend as much money as they wanted. Because such broadcasting would be totally ineffective when the spectrum got trounced by everyone speaking at once.
But since there's an FCC-granted monopoly on any given frequency/area, we're already regulating speech. And granting that use only to monied interests makes the non-monied interests invisible - it violates their equivalent free speech rights.
So let's make a deal. Ban the FCC, and we can live with money=speech.
I don't know if this is the case now, but 10 years ago, when I lived in Naperville, IL, the Red Roof in on Diehl road was supposedly the ONLY Red Roof Inn that didn't actually have a Red Roof. A special city ordinance was passed to ban the red roof, because it was adjacent to highway I-88, and deemed "too distracting for drivers" (never mind the booze and gentlemans club billboard ads).
Cash payouts as subsidies are a tiny, tiny fraction of all the corporate welfare.
Taxpayers fund roads, that corporations use to truck their goods. We pay to educate their workers. We pay to defend their assets in foreign countries (in the form of wars, and defense spending). We pay to clean up the environment they pollute. We pay for courts and prosecutors to jail the white collar criminals.
There is so much public wealth flowing to corporations in this country, and much of it is difficult to measure, but you can tell it's there.
After all, having cell service is pretty important to most people
It's only important if you're locked into a contract where the terms (ie. precise nature of area coverage) were not known at the time you signed the contract.
Presumably, one could either modify the signal at the source prior to sending it down the TCP/IP stack (which - I guess, would mean either a D->A->C conversion? - or some kind of digital trickery I'm not aware of) or maybe configuration info for the Amp could be sent to the remote amplifiers over TCP/IP as well. I assume someone at Polk is working this, because if you're running CAT5 to ceiling mounted speakers, you don't want to have to get on a ladder to adjust eq and volume.
It is a market in need of consolidation because there are to many packages selling to relatively few users for not enough money.
Yeah. Fuck Free Market Capitalism and competition. Let's have more fucking software monopolies. Hell, I'll be happy when Microsoft just fucking buys all of them. Then designers will have two choices: Microsoft IE-CAD.NET web service, (pay-per-line), and pen+paper. Then we'll truly know that a new age of wonderous technology has dawned upon us.
You are grossly underestimating the significance of this struggle. As an economic superpower, the EU is a potential threat to the US, economically, and militarily, which are both really the same thing. They are tied to eachother. If Airbus "wins" and becomes the dominant large aircraft builder in the world, Boeing, a major US military contractor goes down. And then where does the US have to turn to get large aircraft like tankers, transports, etc.
Air Dominance is the most important aspect of military conflicts, since about 1942. And Industrial Dominance has been the most important aspect for a lot longer.
This is an interesting issue for Free Market folks in the US, because if the Free Market were allowed to work, who knows who would win. But without sweetheart military contracts, both companies would be in a world of hurt right now. It's also no conicidence that Osama Bin Laden chose the US air industry as his target. Both with counter-hijak safety, and from a fueling standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
No - there is an objective difference.
The problem here is, what people seem to be calling a "liberal bias" is when a reporter appears to be taking a side which is disloyal to the right. Including questioning authority.
Calling authority into question is not bias.
What I call "Conservative Bias" is when facts are distorted or concealed in order to give Conservatives a free ride, and distorting facts, reporting falsehoods, and refusing to correct them when they're later found to be false, when it's convenient for conservatives and their cause, that's conservative bias.
Distorting factual information IS bias.
For example, claiming moral equivalency between covering up a blowjob while under oath, and presenting false evidence of WMD programs as being justified in order to get rid of a dictator, is not a slanted opinion. There's no equivalency there, and that's an objective fact.
Another important difference between the current GOP philosophy, and Democrat philosophy, in how it affects how differing philosophies are perceived, is in terms of whether it's underlying ethics is Teleological (outcome based) or Deontological (duty based).
(Ethicists say that both are valid, and both need to be considered in any methodology of analyzing an ethical dilemma).
Teleological ethics are concerned with the outcome of the decision or policy: how will it affect everyone involved? Is the greatest good for the greatest number of people achieved. It does not concern itself with what is morally "right" or "wrong" about the decision, as long as the outcome is good. Admittedly, this is the main driving rationale for politics on the left, and often in pursuit of an accurate cost-benefit analysis, the morality of policy is overlooked.
Deontological ethics are concerned with one's moral duties. Is the decision morally right or wrong? It does not concern itself with the outcome of the decision. This is admittedly the main driving rationale for politics on the right, and often, in pursuit of "morally perfect" policy, some poor outcomes can result.
The effective difference here, is that Democrats *DO* consider the morality of some policy decisions - for example, whether it's moral to start a war without legitimate justification. There's a balanced approach. While the current crop of Republicans simply looks at whether it was morally right to let Saddam Hussein remain in power (while ignoring the immorality of their party's past support for him) and comes to the conclusion that not only would it be immoral to let him stay in power, but it's also immoral to question the morality - thus forcing everyone into a binary choice, false dilemma - which eliminates the concept of a political spectrum. Either you're with us or against us. Damn the outcome.
It's like calling pitbull or cock fights "recreational sports".
Actually, I think that most of the debate shows are more accurately described as being close kin to what's called professional wrestling. Staged and scripted, outcome predetermined, designed to inflame, incite, entertain, but most of all, generate revenue.
Nope. I'm pretty sure it's always the Evil Business Analysts' fault. I think they're really some kind of death-cult bent on world domination or something.
Scary, but you just described my company's business process. I think it's even documented that way. ;p
Especially when the wives were sisters. Yeeeesh! *shudder*
Don't forget the 56 million voters who voted to re-elect Bush, despite the fact that it is common public knowledge that detainees are being mistreated, there's no WMD, and $9 Billion has been "lost" by the CPA. Those 56 million Bush voters validated all of these actions, and are equally responsible. Where's an oubliette big enough to contain them all?
Nope.
CMMI is definately worth the effort. But there are no guarantees. As with level 3 and 4, even with 5, continual process improvement, you can still have a crappy process. It's not so much process improvement as process change. Yes, you have to prove with your metrics that the change is an improvement, but the difference between theory and practice is, in theory, there's no difference, but in practice there is.
But you can still get death marches, corner cutting, and all manner of engineering attrocities in a Level 5 environment. Or do you believe that everybody always follows process all the time, and never makes mistakes?
while one politician may espouse a short sighted policy that yeilds short term profits (short term tax cuts, and relaxing immigration laws), another may espouse policies that may in the short term be painful, but yeild long-term gains (such as higher taxes, funding for basic R&D). As a shareholder, I would want to voice my opinion about such strategies, to maximize my long term gain (if that's my goal) or short term gain (if I'm a pumpndumper).
Actually, I kind of like the recent proposed ballot initiative in California, that gives Union Members a checkbox on their union form, that says whether they will allow their portion of dues to be used for campaign contributions.
Though that's pretty one-sided. They should also add a law that requires all holders of stock of publicly traded companies to get a checkbox as well - their proportionate holdings in the company should give THEM a vote as to whether that company can donate to politicians as well.
(in fact, I think Boards of Directors should be done away with entirely, and shareholders should be allowed to choose vote (or abdicate) on all corporate issues, including CEO pay, etc. - - companies who don't like that can opt to not be publicly traded).
Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line?
We draw the line when we accept the reality that speech is 2-way communication. Not 1-way. Speech backed with money (ie. purchased mass advertising) reaches more recipients and therefore has more impact than speech not backed with money.
I would posit that we could let this slide if we abolished the FCC. If everyone had the right to build a transmitter to spam their campain advertisements on any and every frequency, any time they wanted, and nobody owned frequencies, then I'd say that it would be okay to let people spend as much money as they wanted. Because such broadcasting would be totally ineffective when the spectrum got trounced by everyone speaking at once.
But since there's an FCC-granted monopoly on any given frequency/area, we're already regulating speech. And granting that use only to monied interests makes the non-monied interests invisible - it violates their equivalent free speech rights.
So let's make a deal. Ban the FCC, and we can live with money=speech.
. . . and analogizing backwards; it's a good thing nobody has used performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.
Our current healthcare "system" has a 14% overhead for insurance company administration costs.
Medicare overhead is 3%.
I don't know if this is the case now, but 10 years ago, when I lived in Naperville, IL, the Red Roof in on Diehl road was supposedly the ONLY Red Roof Inn that didn't actually have a Red Roof. A special city ordinance was passed to ban the red roof, because it was adjacent to highway I-88, and deemed "too distracting for drivers" (never mind the booze and gentlemans club billboard ads).
The solution?
Nationalize the Health Insurance Industry.
If they insure everybody, then there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.
Cash payouts as subsidies are a tiny, tiny fraction of all the corporate welfare.
Taxpayers fund roads, that corporations use to truck their goods.
We pay to educate their workers.
We pay to defend their assets in foreign countries (in the form of wars, and defense spending).
We pay to clean up the environment they pollute.
We pay for courts and prosecutors to jail the white collar criminals.
There is so much public wealth flowing to corporations in this country, and much of it is difficult to measure, but you can tell it's there.
After all, having cell service is pretty important to most people
It's only important if you're locked into a contract where the terms (ie. precise nature of area coverage) were not known at the time you signed the contract.
Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing,
Presumably, one could either modify the signal at the source prior to sending it down the TCP/IP stack (which - I guess, would mean either a D->A->C conversion? - or some kind of digital trickery I'm not aware of) or maybe configuration info for the Amp could be sent to the remote amplifiers over TCP/IP as well. I assume someone at Polk is working this, because if you're running CAT5 to ceiling mounted speakers, you don't want to have to get on a ladder to adjust eq and volume.
"Oops I did it again" is a cover of a Louis Armstrong song from the 1930's.
Brittney Spears is in no way, shape, or form, even remotely responsible for that piece of music, or lyrics.
It is a market in need of consolidation because there are to many packages selling to relatively few users for not enough money.
Yeah. Fuck Free Market Capitalism and competition. Let's have more fucking software monopolies. Hell, I'll be happy when Microsoft just fucking buys all of them. Then designers will have two choices: Microsoft IE-CAD.NET web service, (pay-per-line), and pen+paper. Then we'll truly know that a new age of wonderous technology has dawned upon us.
Considering how much US Govt. debt is currently financed by China, maybe it'd be more appropriate to call Hawaii East China. . .
(btw, thank you George W Bush, *true* Conservative!)
I hereby declare her to be an evil baby-eating witch, who must NOT gain any Democratic votes for confirmation.
why are $600,000 3500 s.f. houses sprouting like mushrooms?
Because developers can make buttloads more profit on a $600k 3500 sf house, than they can on 3 $150k 1200 sf houses.
They don't even bother with the 1200 sf houses.
I think he's following in Malthus' footsteps.
You are grossly underestimating the significance of this struggle. As an economic superpower, the EU is a potential threat to the US, economically, and militarily, which are both really the same thing. They are tied to eachother. If Airbus "wins" and becomes the dominant large aircraft builder in the world, Boeing, a major US military contractor goes down. And then where does the US have to turn to get large aircraft like tankers, transports, etc.
Air Dominance is the most important aspect of military conflicts, since about 1942. And Industrial Dominance has been the most important aspect for a lot longer.
This is an interesting issue for Free Market folks in the US, because if the Free Market were allowed to work, who knows who would win. But without sweetheart military contracts, both companies would be in a world of hurt right now. It's also no conicidence that Osama Bin Laden chose the US air industry as his target. Both with counter-hijak safety, and from a fueling standpoint.