This researcher was on CBC radio this morning and one of the fun things that came out was that by denying his application the funding board simultaneously saved $40,000 and actually proved the central hypothesis of his research; obviously ID is having a detrimental effect.
Last time I checked, it was the media's responsibility to report the news, and your responsibility to question government policies. Are you so lazy as to want the reporters to do your job for you? Are you so foolish as to think that the media can be trusted to discharge your responsibilities better than you can yourself?
The responsibility of journalistic media (obviously separate from the media that seems to be obsessed with things like Britney's baby, how many times a day Brad and Angelina do it, etc.) is to objectively report the news. This, by definition, means all sides of a event; not just those aspects which support the current administration or which plays well to their consumers. I have yet to see on CNN, and quite frankly most mainstream American news organizations, anything approaching what could be called true journalism in the past 30 years.
Plus, how can a news source be simultaneously objective and questioning policy?
The whole point of objectivity IS to question anything and everything. Being objective means that you don't report a story in a way which intentionally excludes information necessary for an accurate understanding of the issue. For the past 4 years, the American media has been unbelievably hesitant to question any of the information coming out of the current administration for fear that they will be branded as unpatriotic and unsupportive of a president who, in his words, is fighting a war. By not questioning the information as presented, or even seeking out contrary information, the American media has been anything but objective.
Plus, what makes you think that the BBC is immune from whatever market forces, black-hearted corruption, or government pressure you believe plagues CNN?
I never said that the BBC was immune to pressure. It, like any media, is going to view things from a particular point of view. I only meant to imply that it's a matter of degrees. The BBC at least makes an attempt at journalism, where the American media has, until very recently, appeared to simply be an arm of the government's propoganda machine.
Plus, it's not like the current government administration (whether in the U.S. or in Great Britain) is the only faction with a vested interest in manipulating the media. Have you considered the possibility that the BBC is just as biased as CNN, only you don't notice because it's your own faction controlling the BBC?
Of course any faction will attempt to manipulate the media into representing their side of the story in the best possible way. The difference is, that in many cases, especially in areas which are perceived as patriotism, the American media is woefully neglecting its duty to properly inform the citizens. Without a vibrant, objective, and unfettered press, a free society cannot exist.
We can't really get into your proof of these allegations (that the U.S. government is pressuring the U.S. media to run biased coverage) since, presumably, you'd simply point out that now that they control the media, they're hiding the proof, too!
Actually, it's quite easy to prove. Take a look at the coverage of either the first Gulf War or the current Iraq invasion. In the former, the media was given absolutely no access to any meaningful information; only carefully scripted media events by General H. Norman Schwarzkopf with lots of pretty charts and really neat film of things blowing up. The US military learned from that event, that excluding journalists in such a complete manner made them look secretive and manipulative. So, when Iraq was invaded, the military allowed journalists to be imbedded with military units. This worked a whole lot better. The media made quiet whimpering noises about how they couldn't effectively report the story, but it looked so cool on TV that "our network's journalists are right there in the thick of the action", that they really didn't raise the same stink that they did in the Gulf War. It was quite comical at times to see reporters show up on
I guess more people would like to get their information from a more objective source of news rather than the American media which has been blackmailed, threatened, cajoled, etc. from actually questioning the policies and actions of the US government.
Just a small clarification though, the CBC is not 'state-run'....it's 'state-funded'. Subtle but important. A state-run media organization would act as the mouth-piece of the current regime where being state-funded only means you have to lick a few boots at budget time;-)
Unfortunately, by substituting purchasing their product with stealing it, all you've done is strengthen the sellers of the product. You become the bad guy, not them since you're the one breaking the law. Now the organizations who respresent the big holders of copyrights have the moral upper hand (boy that hurt to say) and can say, "See what's happening....see how we're being hurt....see all those thieves.....you've got to do something". Gives them plenty of ammo to get lawmakers to institute (although the political donations can't hurt either;-) all kinds of oppressive laws that just hurt everybody.
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs).
<SARCASM>I currently have a job opening at my company for a programmer. I would love to hire you since you obviously will be the cheapest employee in the company. Following your logic would give me the ability to pay you exactly $0 since anything you produce would either exist in your brain (pseudo-bits) or on my hard drive (bits again). I can then just make a copy of your work and *poof* its mine. I'm mean they're just bits after all.</SARCASM>
The erosion of people's ethics to limit the concept of theft to apply only to physical items is absurd. Its only a way for people to justify the theft of music, movies, software, satellite TV, etc. to themselves. The further concept that just because the RIAA of a bunch of greedy corporate bastards is just another way to salve people's souls into believing they aren't criminals.
Neither of these arguments changes the fact that it's theft. If you believe that it's anything else you're just deluding yourself. The answer to the greed of the RIAA is simple. Stop buying their product until they smarten up. Within 3 months things will change. Its called a free market system and its works pretty good if you let it. Moving your morals down the evolutionary chain isn't the answer.
I find it strange that whenever the issue of spam comes up on/. it somehow degenerates into an argument about free speech. The question of free speech has nothing to do with spam. Free speech as defined in the US constitution (whether this is good or bad is left as an exercise for the reader) only protects you from having that right unreasonably infringed upon. It does NOT guarantee that that speech can be a) forced upon an unsuspecting individual or more importantly b) forced upon someone at their direct cost. Spam cost me money in a direct and demonstratable manner....therefore it is not and should not be protected by law.
I disagree with catagorizing him as a coward in this instance. Although I disagree with his decision to not fund research using frozen embryos which will be discarded anyway, I applaud the fact that for once Pres. Bush took off those ultra-conservative damn-the-environment blinders which have defined his presidency so far. He seems to have finally tried to come to a decision that offers a balance between to diametrically opposed viewpoints. There may be hope for the man yet.
A whole 5 hours before it showed up on Slashdot.
Oh the humanity. If I'd only known about this a few hours ago when that extra $10M laying around on my boss' floor I could of had one. Impatient twirp went and spent the whole wad on 1 month of 24x7 support for our lone Win2K server.
</sarcasm>
Reading/. is not done for timeliness (although I usually see things here first) its for the breadth and variety of articles. If you want a place where things show up picoseconds after they hit the ether then you've shown up for the wrong party. And yes, there are trolls and moronic comments (scroll up a bit and you might see one) but the good stuff far outweighs the negatives. Since I gave up coffee (I'm still in mourning over that one),/. is the first thing I do in the morning.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it was Metro Morning with Andy Barry.
This researcher was on CBC radio this morning and one of the fun things that came out was that by denying his application the funding board simultaneously saved $40,000 and actually proved the central hypothesis of his research; obviously ID is having a detrimental effect.
Last time I checked, it was the media's responsibility to report the news, and your responsibility to question government policies. Are you so lazy as to want the reporters to do your job for you? Are you so foolish as to think that the media can be trusted to discharge your responsibilities better than you can yourself?
The responsibility of journalistic media (obviously separate from the media that seems to be obsessed with things like Britney's baby, how many times a day Brad and Angelina do it, etc.) is to objectively report the news. This, by definition, means all sides of a event; not just those aspects which support the current administration or which plays well to their consumers. I have yet to see on CNN, and quite frankly most mainstream American news organizations, anything approaching what could be called true journalism in the past 30 years.
Plus, how can a news source be simultaneously objective and questioning policy?
The whole point of objectivity IS to question anything and everything. Being objective means that you don't report a story in a way which intentionally excludes information necessary for an accurate understanding of the issue. For the past 4 years, the American media has been unbelievably hesitant to question any of the information coming out of the current administration for fear that they will be branded as unpatriotic and unsupportive of a president who, in his words, is fighting a war. By not questioning the information as presented, or even seeking out contrary information, the American media has been anything but objective.
Plus, what makes you think that the BBC is immune from whatever market forces, black-hearted corruption, or government pressure you believe plagues CNN?
I never said that the BBC was immune to pressure. It, like any media, is going to view things from a particular point of view. I only meant to imply that it's a matter of degrees. The BBC at least makes an attempt at journalism, where the American media has, until very recently, appeared to simply be an arm of the government's propoganda machine.
Plus, it's not like the current government administration (whether in the U.S. or in Great Britain) is the only faction with a vested interest in manipulating the media. Have you considered the possibility that the BBC is just as biased as CNN, only you don't notice because it's your own faction controlling the BBC?
Of course any faction will attempt to manipulate the media into representing their side of the story in the best possible way. The difference is, that in many cases, especially in areas which are perceived as patriotism, the American media is woefully neglecting its duty to properly inform the citizens. Without a vibrant, objective, and unfettered press, a free society cannot exist.
We can't really get into your proof of these allegations (that the U.S. government is pressuring the U.S. media to run biased coverage) since, presumably, you'd simply point out that now that they control the media, they're hiding the proof, too!
Actually, it's quite easy to prove. Take a look at the coverage of either the first Gulf War or the current Iraq invasion. In the former, the media was given absolutely no access to any meaningful information; only carefully scripted media events by General H. Norman Schwarzkopf with lots of pretty charts and really neat film of things blowing up. The US military learned from that event, that excluding journalists in such a complete manner made them look secretive and manipulative. So, when Iraq was invaded, the military allowed journalists to be imbedded with military units. This worked a whole lot better. The media made quiet whimpering noises about how they couldn't effectively report the story, but it looked so cool on TV that "our network's journalists are right there in the thick of the action", that they really didn't raise the same stink that they did in the Gulf War. It was quite comical at times to see reporters show up on
I guess more people would like to get their information from a more objective source of news rather than the American media which has been blackmailed, threatened, cajoled, etc. from actually questioning the policies and actions of the US government.
Because we've all seen the results that proper examination has given us so far.
Just a small clarification though, the CBC is not 'state-run'....it's 'state-funded'. Subtle but important. A state-run media organization would act as the mouth-piece of the current regime where being state-funded only means you have to lick a few boots at budget time ;-)
I disagree, the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them ;-)
Depends what she looks like ;-)
Given their past record, the fact that M$oft considers this "critical" implies that one of the following is now extremely likely:
Now I can call my Software Development Team the PEP Squad (tm).
Unfortunately, by substituting purchasing their product with stealing it, all you've done is strengthen the sellers of the product. You become the bad guy, not them since you're the one breaking the law. Now the organizations who respresent the big holders of copyrights have the moral upper hand (boy that hurt to say) and can say, "See what's happening....see how we're being hurt....see all those thieves.....you've got to do something". Gives them plenty of ammo to get lawmakers to institute (although the political donations can't hurt either ;-) all kinds of oppressive laws that just hurt everybody.
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs).
<SARCASM>I currently have a job opening at my company for a programmer. I would love to hire you since you obviously will be the cheapest employee in the company. Following your logic would give me the ability to pay you exactly $0 since anything you produce would either exist in your brain (pseudo-bits) or on my hard drive (bits again). I can then just make a copy of your work and *poof* its mine. I'm mean they're just bits after all.</SARCASM>
The erosion of people's ethics to limit the concept of theft to apply only to physical items is absurd. Its only a way for people to justify the theft of music, movies, software, satellite TV, etc. to themselves. The further concept that just because the RIAA of a bunch of greedy corporate bastards is just another way to salve people's souls into believing they aren't criminals.
Neither of these arguments changes the fact that it's theft. If you believe that it's anything else you're just deluding yourself. The answer to the greed of the RIAA is simple. Stop buying their product until they smarten up. Within 3 months things will change. Its called a free market system and its works pretty good if you let it. Moving your morals down the evolutionary chain isn't the answer.
I find it strange that whenever the issue of spam comes up on /. it somehow degenerates into an argument about free speech. The question of free speech has nothing to do with spam. Free speech as defined in the US constitution (whether this is good or bad is left as an exercise for the reader) only protects you from having that right unreasonably infringed upon. It does NOT guarantee that that speech can be a) forced upon an unsuspecting individual or more importantly b) forced upon someone at their direct cost. Spam cost me money in a direct and demonstratable manner....therefore it is not and should not be protected by law.
I disagree with catagorizing him as a coward in this instance. Although I disagree with his decision to not fund research using frozen embryos which will be discarded anyway, I applaud the fact that for once Pres. Bush took off those ultra-conservative damn-the-environment blinders which have defined his presidency so far. He seems to have finally tried to come to a decision that offers a balance between to diametrically opposed viewpoints. There may be hope for the man yet.
Reading