The penguin was also a bad guy. This was only revealed in End of the End of the End of Evangelion, so maybe I should have put a spoiler warn... What am I saying?
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a economic crisis! The money did not go *poof*. It went away from you, and in the pockets of others. There's always someone profiting from something like that.
Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.
It's not a zero-sum game. Everyone can win, but by the same token, everyone can lose.
If I break a window, the asset value of that window is lost, no matter what economic "stimulus" there might appear to be from my having to pay for a new window.
I thought I pointed that out. I gave the examples of Juan Cole and Glen Greenwald.
I thought those were counter-examples. If you're presenting Cole and Greenwald examples of the sort of fact-checking you're after, then journalism's problems run much deeper than you think.
Doctor A is an expert who believes in treating a disease with surgery. Doctor B is an expert who believes in treating a disease with medication. My job as a journalist is to get Dr. A to explain why he believes in surgery, get Dr. B. to explain why he believes in medication, and get each of them to explain why they disagree with the other guy. In my story I can wind up with a broader perspective than you might get from a blog by Dr. A or Dr. B.
But that's just a false perspective taught to you in journalism school. There are always (at least) two sides to the story, but much of the time, one of those sides is dead wrong. When you're discussing evolution, you don't need to talk to an intelligent design proponent. When you're discussing medicine, you don't need to talk to chiropractors or homeopaths. When you're discussing vaccination, you don't need to talk to Jenny McCarthy.
Dr A and Dr B might both have valid points of view. But they can present their points of view themselves. We don't need a journalist to intermediate and get all the facts wrong on both sides.
We do need reporters, still. Journalists, not so much.
What you fail to grasp is that bloggers aren't mere journalists, they very often are experts in a particular field - ScienceBlogs being a good example, but just one of many - and they can tell where and how the blessed New York Times got it wrong (which is pretty much always, on any subject of even moderate complexity) without having to call anyone.
I mean, my iPod's only exploded what, three times? Okay, four, but that last time my girlfriend loaded some Celine Dion on it, so that falls squarely under self-defence.
That's a far better track record than most of my electronic devices.
Science has not provided a robust explanation for the origin of the universe.
But it doesn't claim that it has, and no faith is needed, because the Universe exists.
It cannot explain the four forces.
Explain? It certainly describes the four fources, very accurately. And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist.
It cannot explain time.
Again, what do you mean by "explain"? It certainly describes time, and its interrelation with space, in ways that religion never even guessed at. And no faith is needed, because time exists.
All of those are taken as given without explanation or identifiable cause.
What, are you asserting that the Universe, the four forces, and time don't exist?
For all that some people act smug about being enlightened and scientific, the fact of the matter is, their beliefs are as faith based as the beliefs of the unsophisticated religious types they are mocking.
Nope, sorry, wrong, wrong, completely and irredeemably wrong.
There is no faith involved at any point. There is a method. The scientific method, sometimes described as methodological naturalism. You don't have to believe in metaphsyical naturalism. You don't need to believe in science at all. You just need to follow the method, and you get results.
Seemingly there is no reason for it to work at all, yet there are people who get results by taking it.
I had a cold. I stayed in bed and ate chocolate for a couple of days, and my cold went away. From this I learned that (a) chocolate is a cure for the common cold and (b) having a cold causes you to gain weight.
There's nothing wrong with owning a resource in common - for example people in certain states resort to owning "shares" of a cow in order to legally get raw milk (you know, the stuff your grandparents drank without worry).
No, he's right. The new entry Mac Pro has a single socket motherboard with only 4 DIMM slots. The CPU is Xeon in name only; it's identical to the i7 920.
We have these in our production servers right now. They really deliver. They seem to top out at around 60,000 IOPS with EXT3 (the 100K figure was with XFS) but I've hit close to 800MB/s on sequential transfers.
He has a lot of good books, but it would be hard for hollywood to make them into a two hour film. Short stories are better.
Have Spacesuit, Will Travel could work, or The Door into Summer. Or Glory Road. Include the nude beach scene with Star at the beginning and you've sold it to your audience already.
But that just throttles all P2P transfers. What Conroy is talking about is working out what files are being transferred and blocking the ones on his blacklist.
That blacklist is going to make for interesting reading...
Yes, that's what it sounds like, which is even crazier than just blocking P2P traffic outright. I don't think Conroy is listening to anyone at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
The penguin was also a bad guy. This was only revealed in End of the End of the End of Evangelion, so maybe I should have put a spoiler warn... What am I saying?
Having the right to something doesn't mean you get it for free.
Yes it does.
If you have to pay for it, it's not a right, it's just a commodity.
Oh well. (Mods self -1, Redundant.)
Prove it.
So just like the rest of the media, but with tits?
Sounds like a win to me.
Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.
It's not a zero-sum game. Everyone can win, but by the same token, everyone can lose.
If I break a window, the asset value of that window is lost, no matter what economic "stimulus" there might appear to be from my having to pay for a new window.
The money really did go *poof*. Money does that.
I thought those were counter-examples. If you're presenting Cole and Greenwald examples of the sort of fact-checking you're after, then journalism's problems run much deeper than you think.
But that's just a false perspective taught to you in journalism school. There are always (at least) two sides to the story, but much of the time, one of those sides is dead wrong. When you're discussing evolution, you don't need to talk to an intelligent design proponent. When you're discussing medicine, you don't need to talk to chiropractors or homeopaths. When you're discussing vaccination, you don't need to talk to Jenny McCarthy.
Dr A and Dr B might both have valid points of view. But they can present their points of view themselves. We don't need a journalist to intermediate and get all the facts wrong on both sides.
We do need reporters, still. Journalists, not so much.
What you fail to grasp is that bloggers aren't mere journalists, they very often are experts in a particular field - ScienceBlogs being a good example, but just one of many - and they can tell where and how the blessed New York Times got it wrong (which is pretty much always, on any subject of even moderate complexity) without having to call anyone.
They are your fact checkers.
I mean, my iPod's only exploded what, three times? Okay, four, but that last time my girlfriend loaded some Celine Dion on it, so that falls squarely under self-defence.
That's a far better track record than most of my electronic devices.
Pleh!
Xapian and NLTK all the way!
Wrong.
But it doesn't claim that it has, and no faith is needed, because the Universe exists.
Explain? It certainly describes the four fources, very accurately. And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist.
Again, what do you mean by "explain"? It certainly describes time, and its interrelation with space, in ways that religion never even guessed at. And no faith is needed, because time exists.
What, are you asserting that the Universe, the four forces, and time don't exist?
Nope, sorry, wrong, wrong, completely and irredeemably wrong.
There is no faith involved at any point. There is a method. The scientific method, sometimes described as methodological naturalism. You don't have to believe in metaphsyical naturalism. You don't need to believe in science at all. You just need to follow the method, and you get results.
This is precisely the opposite of religion.
Hahahahahaha -cough- hahahahahahaha!!!! Hee! ...
Oh, wait, you were serious?!
Martin Luther called. He wants his 95 Theses back.
I had a cold. I stayed in bed and ate chocolate for a couple of days, and my cold went away. From this I learned that (a) chocolate is a cure for the common cold and (b) having a cold causes you to gain weight.
My grandparents are dead.
Coincidence? I think not.
Fifteen RIAA execs just died laughing at the idea of giving artists 40% of the gross.
Good work.
More like 0.02%. Not just corrupt, but cheap.
Fast code that doesn't work is not all that useful.
Except in search engines.
No, he's right. The new entry Mac Pro has a single socket motherboard with only 4 DIMM slots. The CPU is Xeon in name only; it's identical to the i7 920.
X-Window (MIT, 1984)
Apple Lisa (1983)
Windows 1.0 (1985)
We have these in our production servers right now. They really deliver. They seem to top out at around 60,000 IOPS with EXT3 (the 100K figure was with XFS) but I've hit close to 800MB/s on sequential transfers.
Have Spacesuit, Will Travel could work, or The Door into Summer. Or Glory Road. Include the nude beach scene with Star at the beginning and you've sold it to your audience already.
But that just throttles all P2P transfers. What Conroy is talking about is working out what files are being transferred and blocking the ones on his blacklist.
That blacklist is going to make for interesting reading...
Yes, that's what it sounds like, which is even crazier than just blocking P2P traffic outright. I don't think Conroy is listening to anyone at this point.
Ignoring Spain and Greece and Russia and all of eastern Europe, France itself has changed its form of government 12 times in 200 years.