I'm laughing even louder at the fact that in order to legitimize this guy's book as research you find it necessary to point out that it quotes the New York Times.
I'm familiar with the book, yes. And yes he quotes the Times extensively and argues that the articles have a left wing bias. I could easily do the same in the other direction -- quote the Times extensively to "demonstrate" a right-wing bias. Chomsky and the people from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting have done so over and over. Selective quoting of such a source can yield all kinds of results. But such a one-sided rant is hardly "research".
Read my original comment again -- I was responding to the claim that there was no difference between the front page news and the op-eds. That is obviously a false claim, and this book does not support it. I was specifically responding to the claim that it was less objective than FOX. Again the claim is ridiculous. Finally, I wrote, "And while it's true that they do select which stories to publish, and that those selections betray editorial bias, that is true of every news outlet" (emph. added). The argument this guy makes about NYT could easily be made of any news outlet; all he does is add his ranting conspiracy theory.
He claims it's not millions of years old, FWIW. It looks hoaxy too - at least, it's odd that I can't find anything else on this in google, but who knows....
Do people actually believe this is true? FOX is by far the bigger culprit on this count. By far. Can you give examples of the NYT cloaking opinion as a news item? I'm not talking about their "news analysis" pieces (though they too are easily distinguished from op-ed pieces) but their front page news items. Now it's true that sometimes some of their writers get things wrong consistently based on their politics (e.g. Judy Miller), but that is not the same thing (and the Times should do more about such folks than act embarrassed, and they certainly shouldn't represent such people as first amendment heroes, but that's another issue entirely)
I suspect that your complaint with the Times is that they sometimes publish facts that reasonably lead to conclusions contrary to your own. And while it's true that they do select which stories to publish, and that those selections betray editorial bias, that is true of every news outlet (especially FOX). I realize this sort of comment is considered insightful among Dittoheads, but it's just utter nonsense.
"Back in the day"... he was definitely a master of BASIC and pretty much the only person in the world who actually understood DOS... (I remember trying to figure that crap out when keyboards didn't even have a "\" key.) Apparently he was famously a twit back then too - there's an article from the 70s by him calling people thieves for copying his BASIC code and patronizingly explaining why since he wrote the code he should be able to dictate who is allowed to learn something from it... Maybe someone can dig up this article; as I recall he had a really whiny argument against piracy of code that was only copied by people who were using it to learn more.
It seems that if Yahoo! makes the rule they are implicitly claiming to have confidence that they can enforce it. Does that mean that if a child does manage to get into one of these rooms and gets molested that Yahoo! is partly responsible? I'm sure Yahoo! would say no!, but I could easily see this being a reasonable claim in a lawsuit.
This doesn't answer the question what is a "journalist" and what is a "blogger". There is no magic number of page views that makes a blog into a news source. Also, the Constitution does not seem to allow for different classes of free speech and press protection. You may feel that some people's rights are a higher priority than others to protect (and you may be right), BUT there is no Constitutionally appropriate manner to give such priority I don't think.
I have some insight on this topic as a university professor. I've used both systems, and I was on the Academic Technology Committee when it was advising the CTO and CIO on purchasing decisions for such systems. We wound up paying for both. As you say, they both suck, and I'm sure whatever unholy combination is produced will suck even worse. At the time - 1999 or 2000 I believe - "open source" was something my colleagues on the committee had heard of but didn't know anything about, and the CTO and CIO were computer-savvy but looked on open source with disdain (this made sense as they were constantly wined and dined by folks who represent closed source companies looking for big deals). I was teaching summers at UCLA at the time and had the opportunity to use ClassWeb, an open source alternative to such tools. My experience with the tool was exemplary; I thought it was easy to use, it fulfilled the necessary functions and was not needlessly confusing for students. It was also free. Best of all, the developer worked at UCLA so when there were features I wanted I was able to ask him for them and they were available in days. It was truly a classic case of the superiority of the open source model working well. For much less the price we paid for Blackboard and CT, which all the students complain about, we could have hired programmers to handle coding issues on classweb and had an open source solution that we could fine tune at will. But when I made the suggestion, the feeling around the table (particularly from the CTO and CIO) was, shut up hippie.... Today I don't use any such tools -- I still code my course web pages by hand using html and have some very primitive open source discussion board technology for discussions. I think it's necessary to have courses online these days for various reasons, but the tools offered by these companies are needlessly ornate and confusing. The open source model makes sense in general but especially in public university settings where costs are a relevant factor and where the freedom to tinker with code brings with it additional educational benefits.
Well there are places where midgets all live together and work together, aren't there? I remember a movie about a wizard that featured a place like this; I think it was called "Oz."
Slashdot Mirror
Will you shut up and pass the twinkies?
He can still get spores from the mattress, sheets, the floor, etc. Why not just wrap your son in polyethylene? It makes things easier.
He's thinking about it like an advertiser, or like a consumer, but not like someone who actually reads books/magazines/etc.
Let me guess -- you used to write for WIRED in 1998.
That guy's dead. And before that he was a paraplegic.
He claims it's not millions of years old, FWIW. It looks hoaxy too - at least, it's odd that I can't find anything else on this in google, but who knows....
I said examples of the NYT cloaking opinion as a news item, not examples of right-wing loons cloaking half-baked conspiracy theories as research.
I suspect that your complaint with the Times is that they sometimes publish facts that reasonably lead to conclusions contrary to your own. And while it's true that they do select which stories to publish, and that those selections betray editorial bias, that is true of every news outlet (especially FOX). I realize this sort of comment is considered insightful among Dittoheads, but it's just utter nonsense.
"Back in the day" ... he was definitely a master of BASIC and pretty much the only person in the world who actually understood DOS... (I remember trying to figure that crap out when keyboards didn't even have a "\" key.) Apparently he was famously a twit back then too - there's an article from the 70s by him calling people thieves for copying his BASIC code and patronizingly explaining why since he wrote the code he should be able to dictate who is allowed to learn something from it... Maybe someone can dig up this article; as I recall he had a really whiny argument against piracy of code that was only copied by people who were using it to learn more.
with viMacs.
It seems that if Yahoo! makes the rule they are implicitly claiming to have confidence that they can enforce it. Does that mean that if a child does manage to get into one of these rooms and gets molested that Yahoo! is partly responsible? I'm sure Yahoo! would say no!, but I could easily see this being a reasonable claim in a lawsuit.
This doesn't answer the question what is a "journalist" and what is a "blogger". There is no magic number of page views that makes a blog into a news source. Also, the Constitution does not seem to allow for different classes of free speech and press protection. You may feel that some people's rights are a higher priority than others to protect (and you may be right), BUT there is no Constitutionally appropriate manner to give such priority I don't think.
I have some insight on this topic as a university professor. I've used both systems, and I was on the Academic Technology Committee when it was advising the CTO and CIO on purchasing decisions for such systems. We wound up paying for both. As you say, they both suck, and I'm sure whatever unholy combination is produced will suck even worse. At the time - 1999 or 2000 I believe - "open source" was something my colleagues on the committee had heard of but didn't know anything about, and the CTO and CIO were computer-savvy but looked on open source with disdain (this made sense as they were constantly wined and dined by folks who represent closed source companies looking for big deals). I was teaching summers at UCLA at the time and had the opportunity to use ClassWeb, an open source alternative to such tools. My experience with the tool was exemplary; I thought it was easy to use, it fulfilled the necessary functions and was not needlessly confusing for students. It was also free. Best of all, the developer worked at UCLA so when there were features I wanted I was able to ask him for them and they were available in days. It was truly a classic case of the superiority of the open source model working well. For much less the price we paid for Blackboard and CT, which all the students complain about, we could have hired programmers to handle coding issues on classweb and had an open source solution that we could fine tune at will. But when I made the suggestion, the feeling around the table (particularly from the CTO and CIO) was, shut up hippie.... Today I don't use any such tools -- I still code my course web pages by hand using html and have some very primitive open source discussion board technology for discussions. I think it's necessary to have courses online these days for various reasons, but the tools offered by these companies are needlessly ornate and confusing. The open source model makes sense in general but especially in public university settings where costs are a relevant factor and where the freedom to tinker with code brings with it additional educational benefits.
Hey, wait a minute.
Where were these bones found again?
A human G-nome?!
They know because they found a cave painting nearby that said "F1rst P0st!"
Definitely do that. The scientists will likely be intrigued by your ideas and want to subscribe to your newsletter.
Free as in Willy.
Perhaps because the "record labels" referred to in this article are, ummm, "corporations"? Just a guess.
The software they've designed to do the indexing will only run on Longhorn.
How could this person possibly kill such a magnificent creature and discard its body without ever finding out what it tasted like?
The story's also being carried in ABC and the Sunday Mail, fwiw.
Meet the black panther. Puma, leopard, jaguar all have this variant.
If they're both black they're a lot harder to tell apart.