Instead of just saying "seriously", why don't you provide a counterexample? In this context, that would be an example of a Fox News misdeed of which other networks are never guilty. Note that we're excluding the Fox commentary and editorial people, and just talking about the formal news reporting.
Since some people may have thought I was trolling*, let me explain what I meant:
1. The OP said "Just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague". However, I haven't read any actual evidence that Fox News personnel were involved in the phone hacking. So the OP's statement was at minimum a non sequitur, and appears to furthermore be merely a specimen of irrelevant Fox News bashing. It's fair to say that he/she was trolling.
2. When I said "the legitimate news operation at Fox News", I excluded the editorial segments of the organization such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, (formerly) Glenn Beck, etc. Most of the complaints I've heard about Fox News simply don't apply to the formal news operation. And all the legitimate criticisms I've heard about the formal news operation are also true of other large networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. Nobody's perfect.
3. I was legitimately calling out an unsubstantiated and irrelevant attack on Fox News by the OP, and I've noticed that nobody has provided any substantiation yet. It is just assumed by the (teenaged?) moderators of this thread that Fox News is just evil by definition, and whatever bad thing you say about them is automatically true. Anybody who even questions that (like myself) is presumed to be trolling. This is a pretty silly attitude to take.
* But more likely, some people simply moderated my post based on perceiving me to hold a different political view from them. Classy!
Is there any evidence that Fox News has participated in the phone hacking? If none, then isn't the OP simply a dishonest smear ("just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague")? It is unfortunate to see Slashdot moderators basing their mod points on their political views alone. Apparently I missed the announcement that it was time for "2 minutes hate"?
Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?
Fox News is a large and diverse organization which pretty easily defies your shallow stereotyping. There are some editorial commentators who are pretty far out there (exactly like you find on other large cable networks), and some who are more grounded and evenhanded (exactly like you find on other large networks). The actual news side of the organization (non-editorial) is a lot more professional and objective than many people give them credit for. In fact, I think much of the flak they get is simply because many of them are willing to touch subjects that left-leaning journalists would prefer to (in effect) censor and avoid discussing. I think that the diversity Fox News brings to news in the USA is a net positive effect, despite the misdeeds they are occasionally guilty of (again, just like other major networks; nobody is perfect).
OK, I can certainly agree to be concerned about that, and hope that any criminal leads are followed up on. Haven't seen any actual evidence though, so OP's Fox-bashing remains unjustified (correct me if I'm wrong).
Ballmer is the opposite of charismatic, and a lot of people find him annoying to look at or listen to.
But on the other hand, the worst criticism that can be leveled him is that Microsoft is making merely boat-loads of money instead of uber-boat-loads of money. Is that fair? I dunno. That's above my pay grade.
I'm sure he's always open to another round of Segway polo, or buying a new cell phone to add to his collection, or hanging out with school kids and doing his best attempt at an inspiring lecture (he's not great at it, but everybody loves him anyway because he is a permanent duke of geekdom), or maybe just going home and rolling around in a big pile of cash.
It was supposed to be "ordinarily". My bad. And I did it in Chrome with spell checking enabled, so I was just in too much of a hurry.
It's my impression that "brain cells are not ordinarily regenerated" because I had always heard that they were _never_ regenerated, until recently I read about scientists inducing brain cells to regenerate in animal studies; so it must be possible in some circumdtances.
It seems like cell immortality basically equals cancer elsewhere in the body. Maybe since brain cells are not orginarily regenerated, longevity won't cause a direct problem?
Fascinating research, but I am not a fan of his suggested application. The last thing I want as a test taker is to have a computer dumb down the test (with presumed accompanying grade reduction) to help me relax and feel good about myself.
If you only ever read Media Matters and the Huffington Post, I can understand you having those impressions. I think you're mistaken on both counts, but don't have time to follow up. Cheers.
Voter fraud is perpetrated by both sides, unfortunately. It's my impression that the left gets away with it more, just because it's easier to do in one shot on a large scale with urban population densities. Recall that our large, hopelessly corrupt urban centers like Chicago are heavily Democratic. And as far as the military vote, I agree that it's a crying shame when their votes get discarded. But isn't it also true that the militarily typically leans right when they vote? So wouldn't throwing out military votes have more likely helped Kerry?
...would hire those two dudes from the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" commercial for a reunion commercial. I'm sure Apple would sue, though, because Apple only has a sense of humor when they are making fun of other people.
That's irrelevant; the majority voted for him zero times.
That's a combination of irrelevant and inaccurate. For one thing, the majority don't vote at all. For another thing, if voters felt strongly enough about changing the electoral college system and going with a more direct election of presidents, they could; the Constitution has provisions for making such changes. So that doesn't by itself say anything about the US being a dictatorial country -- it just indicates that most people are complacent about that issue.
As for the inaccurate part, Bush won by a handy margin against Kerry in 2004, even though Gore beat him in the popular vote statistic in 2000.
You know, for the sake of argument, I would easily grant most of the points you make above. I still don't think the USA qualifies as a dictatorship, but maybe that boils down to semantics. I'm looking at whether there are some people who can supersede any law whenever they choose to, and you're more looking at whether perhaps the law itself is oppressive and suppresses freedom. I do strongly agree that there are many things that the USA does wrong at many levels (international, federal, state, and local). Anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you ever feel like your fighting a loosing [sic] cause
No, not really. And despite the number of highly emotional words you posted, there was only one rational idea you gave me to respond to, so...
for example the infamous "no positive mentions of Global Warming allowed" memo
How exactly is that different from other large networks stringently blacking out any official posture of credence toward climate disaster skepticism?
Your assumptions serve you poorly. I actually don't regularly listen to or watch Fox News, or any of the other large news networks.
But you didn't answer the question. Why don't you give an example? Are you unable to?
Instead of just saying "seriously", why don't you provide a counterexample? In this context, that would be an example of a Fox News misdeed of which other networks are never guilty. Note that we're excluding the Fox commentary and editorial people, and just talking about the formal news reporting.
Go for it. (Or am I calling your bluff?)
Since some people may have thought I was trolling*, let me explain what I meant:
1. The OP said "Just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague". However, I haven't read any actual evidence that Fox News personnel were involved in the phone hacking. So the OP's statement was at minimum a non sequitur, and appears to furthermore be merely a specimen of irrelevant Fox News bashing. It's fair to say that he/she was trolling.
2. When I said "the legitimate news operation at Fox News", I excluded the editorial segments of the organization such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, (formerly) Glenn Beck, etc. Most of the complaints I've heard about Fox News simply don't apply to the formal news operation. And all the legitimate criticisms I've heard about the formal news operation are also true of other large networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. Nobody's perfect.
3. I was legitimately calling out an unsubstantiated and irrelevant attack on Fox News by the OP, and I've noticed that nobody has provided any substantiation yet. It is just assumed by the (teenaged?) moderators of this thread that Fox News is just evil by definition, and whatever bad thing you say about them is automatically true. Anybody who even questions that (like myself) is presumed to be trolling. This is a pretty silly attitude to take.
* But more likely, some people simply moderated my post based on perceiving me to hold a different political view from them. Classy!
Is there any evidence that Fox News has participated in the phone hacking? If none, then isn't the OP simply a dishonest smear ("just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague")? It is unfortunate to see Slashdot moderators basing their mod points on their political views alone. Apparently I missed the announcement that it was time for "2 minutes hate"?
Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?
Fox News is a large and diverse organization which pretty easily defies your shallow stereotyping. There are some editorial commentators who are pretty far out there (exactly like you find on other large cable networks), and some who are more grounded and evenhanded (exactly like you find on other large networks). The actual news side of the organization (non-editorial) is a lot more professional and objective than many people give them credit for. In fact, I think much of the flak they get is simply because many of them are willing to touch subjects that left-leaning journalists would prefer to (in effect) censor and avoid discussing. I think that the diversity Fox News brings to news in the USA is a net positive effect, despite the misdeeds they are occasionally guilty of (again, just like other major networks; nobody is perfect).
OK, I can certainly agree to be concerned about that, and hope that any criminal leads are followed up on. Haven't seen any actual evidence though, so OP's Fox-bashing remains unjustified (correct me if I'm wrong).
Of course you're trolling, but what does the downfall of a gutter-level tabloid have to do with the legitimate news operation at Fox News?
Ballmer is the opposite of charismatic, and a lot of people find him annoying to look at or listen to.
But on the other hand, the worst criticism that can be leveled him is that Microsoft is making merely boat-loads of money instead of uber-boat-loads of money. Is that fair? I dunno. That's above my pay grade.
I'm sure he's always open to another round of Segway polo, or buying a new cell phone to add to his collection, or hanging out with school kids and doing his best attempt at an inspiring lecture (he's not great at it, but everybody loves him anyway because he is a permanent duke of geekdom), or maybe just going home and rolling around in a big pile of cash.
He's definitely not looking for employment.
the US secrete service
The sewer authority? I never knew.
Probably for the same reason airliners have two pilots -- so the first guy doesn't just turn on autopilot and go to sleep.
It was supposed to be "ordinarily". My bad. And I did it in Chrome with spell checking enabled, so I was just in too much of a hurry.
It's my impression that "brain cells are not ordinarily regenerated" because I had always heard that they were _never_ regenerated, until recently I read about scientists inducing brain cells to regenerate in animal studies; so it must be possible in some circumdtances.
It seems like cell immortality basically equals cancer elsewhere in the body. Maybe since brain cells are not orginarily regenerated, longevity won't cause a direct problem?
Everybody knows that any game console besides Playstation and Nintendo is doomed to extinction
FTFY.
Fascinating research, but I am not a fan of his suggested application. The last thing I want as a test taker is to have a computer dumb down the test (with presumed accompanying grade reduction) to help me relax and feel good about myself.
OK. Here's a link that suggests that Bush polled ahead of Kerry in the military vote: A Link.
Now where did you get the idea that Kerry led over Bush among the military? Citation, please.
If you only ever read Media Matters and the Huffington Post, I can understand you having those impressions. I think you're mistaken on both counts, but don't have time to follow up. Cheers.
Voter fraud is perpetrated by both sides, unfortunately. It's my impression that the left gets away with it more, just because it's easier to do in one shot on a large scale with urban population densities. Recall that our large, hopelessly corrupt urban centers like Chicago are heavily Democratic. And as far as the military vote, I agree that it's a crying shame when their votes get discarded. But isn't it also true that the militarily typically leans right when they vote? So wouldn't throwing out military votes have more likely helped Kerry?
Author David Bainbridge is 44. And 25 years ago he wrote a book claiming that teenagers are the pinnacle of human existence.
(OK, so it wasn't 25 years ago. But that would have been funny.)
...would hire those two dudes from the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" commercial for a reunion commercial. I'm sure Apple would sue, though, because Apple only has a sense of humor when they are making fun of other people.
That's irrelevant; the majority voted for him zero times.
That's a combination of irrelevant and inaccurate. For one thing, the majority don't vote at all. For another thing, if voters felt strongly enough about changing the electoral college system and going with a more direct election of presidents, they could; the Constitution has provisions for making such changes. So that doesn't by itself say anything about the US being a dictatorial country -- it just indicates that most people are complacent about that issue.
As for the inaccurate part, Bush won by a handy margin against Kerry in 2004, even though Gore beat him in the popular vote statistic in 2000.
You know, for the sake of argument, I would easily grant most of the points you make above. I still don't think the USA qualifies as a dictatorship, but maybe that boils down to semantics. I'm looking at whether there are some people who can supersede any law whenever they choose to, and you're more looking at whether perhaps the law itself is oppressive and suppresses freedom. I do strongly agree that there are many things that the USA does wrong at many levels (international, federal, state, and local). Anyway.
I'm not an idiot. Idiots are people with nothing better to do than reply to trolls on the internet. Wait...
We never elected Bush and we had him twice.
Being sore when your side loses is a long and proud American tradition. But speak for yourself, dude -- I voted for Bush twice*. :D
(*Though not in the Republican primary -- I preferred Alan Keyes.)