I'm all for personal privacy but I really can't see the loss of this sort of privacy outweighing the benifits of getting drunk drivers kept in jail or having a factual record for divorce hearings. When peoples safety and lives are at risk there needs to be some intelligent oversight of these issues but you can't have a blanket privacy enforcement. It just doesn't work. I think that a middle ground would apply, especially here. The database should require warrants and be overseen by a provacy advocate group as well as some seriously paranoid geeks for security. But the data should be there if required to prove innocence or guilt.
"All the DRM stuff aside, point 3 is wrong. WMA is a lossy format, so you can't have a "lossless" conversion. Whenever you convert from lossy->lossy there will always be quality degradation. It's unavoidable unless you have a lossless file as the source."
If you purchase an encoded file that has already gone through a lossy compression that's just your fault for buying it. The rest of that statement is incorrect. To convert from any file to lossless does not degrade the content since the conversion to lossless is "lossless". The ipod supports lossless file formats so this is in no way lossy->lossy as you have stated. It is the same quality as the originally purchased file, witch again, was your fault for buying in the first place.
That's uh, what it's about: "Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod's software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple's FairPlay-modified AAC format," the complaint states. "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "
Some side notes:
1. This was known: http://dotnet.org.za/matt/archive/2004/02/20/460.aspx 2. The wma format itself is a non issue if you use the included iTunes software that ships with every ipod: http://www.apple.com/itunes/jukebox/importing.html
Quote "iTunes also converts unprotected WMA files to AAC." 3. If you have the rights to play it on your PC then you can convert wma files to your ipod without quality loss since it uses lossless conversion. 4. Apple created and supports a free program specifically designed to allow you to convert from wma as well as asf, wmv, wav, and ogg for the ipod: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/easywma.html
It looks to me like they just didn't want to pay to license a format that, by the complaints own addmission, isn't popular enough to hold on to 20% of the online music sales and is likely to be going down since the article even points out that DRM free Mp3 download services are gaining ground.
The second part of the monopoly isue is going to take some proving since the apple ceo posted this on the apple website: Feb 6 2007 "Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It's hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music."
Since the ipod is left with 97% open format playback it's just a matter of deduction to see that the other cheaper players do support these open formats and some include protected wma (Zune) and could be easily puchased instead to use protected wma files directly if the consumer wanted. Free market and all that. If the feature was so desired then the players that support it would have more that a piddling share of the sales of music players. Last note: Napster, Musicmatch, Walmart, Best Buy and Yahoo all adopted the protected WMA music format even though apple is supposed to have a monopoly on the online music industry, interesting. I would have thought that to sell more music they would have licensed formats that easily played back on the most popular music device, the ipod. You know, to make money.
And kinda funny since the Zune shipped without support for Microsofts own "Play for Sure" music.
Where do these people get this stuff?
Shipping a product without support for a desirable format? WTF? This is the whole reason we have the choice to buy hundreds of other brands of mp3 players that support both wma and ogg and mp3 as well as iTunes. I see no monopoly here.
1. This guy had child pornography on a computer he gave to others to work on, if there ware any issues with the graphics playback they would naturally start looking at the system more carefully and try and fix them as part of the dvd drive install process. If they happened to stumble upon files hidden in a directory like "drivers" or "video" they are required to report it to authorities. He gets his computer looked at by professionals and they determine if the files were his and look at the access records and take him to court.
2. If the files were not in a place where it would be required to look during the authorized installation of the DVd drive, the store is busted snooping through peoples computers. Didn't BestBuy get dinged for this not too far back with music files? Regardless of wether or not they copy the files, the act of accessing them witout consent is an issue that hasn't gotten to the point of laws (semi authorized PC repair file access/ not completely unauthorized hacking access)as far as I know but it is way over due. If the right of the store to go through your files is upheld or not restricted what is to stop employees from getting into your financial data or reading your email? That's an invasion of privacy by definition. It doesn't matter what they look at, it matters that they look for something other than within the scope of the repair.
I didn't think anyone would take it that way but I could see how you could have read it that way.
I was referring to the jump from perhaps 1/3G to multiple Gs of acceleration during passenger airlines takeoff.
As I understand it there are some combo engines but scramjet tech needs a fast takeoff speed before initializing or it's not worth it finantially to use.
It's what amounts to stating something "to be taken as fact" VS an "opinion or interpretation".
I've been waiting for this to happen on Wikipedia for a while and still think it's likely for someone to bring the discovery atempt to get an editors identity after a slanderous edit on their page.
Some general things to think about when talking about evil/not evil:
Is it illegal to withhold information in a criminal trial before the defendant is found guilty? What good would the parts of the trial be where the person is still anonymous and cannot represent their side? I personally don't know about these things. IANAL
What happens when the person being slandered is denied the ability to stop it using the courts because there isn't enough evidence to justify revealing the IP address but the slander continues. How would you feel if this was happening to you and google declined to hep without a court order? How long would this take and can the damage ever be repaired?
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom of anonymous speech. There is a specific law that the specific person is being investigated for possibly breaking. This is not invasion of privacy since it's a public post, not restriction of free speech since it is being investigated under the anti slander laws.
I think that this is just a case of responsibility, for the individual to be held accountable for what they say.
So now that it's modded 5 Funny, do you at least admit that others are finding it funny and you claiming "I just don't see any way that it can be taken as a joke." doesn't actually change the fact that others can and do?
Couldn't find the emoticon for making a "swish" noise and quickly passing a palm close over your head, but I hope someone can let you borrow their imagination so you can visualize the sentiment.
Jokes are only funny to those with a sense of humor. Others just start swinging.
Again the "recent" word being used without numerical thought. The game was released a year after the defacto emulator (zsnes) was created and was downloaded by millions a year after that. These numbers are not recent, they also don't define a craze but they at least help narrow the discussion.
Maybe I don't fully understand compression theory and this may very well be off topic, but this doesn't sound possible:
"losslessly compressed" audio file format.
Can someone explain how this compares to the original recording? And am I confusing the analog to digital information loss with the compression (loss) part?
This is the specific viewpoint of an intelligent individual reacting with something other than the reproductive organs or knee jerk emotional blindness.
This is the definition of a rational thought. Not a Troll or mindless opinion spewing like we see here all the time and especially in stories like these. This is thought. You don't have to agree with the emotional implications or throw names and personal stories, since any specific recount is negated simply by the shear number of identical stories from the cancer or drunk driver victims on the other side. This is above that petty narsisistic blithering.
It was down the whole time I searched for, copied and edited in the links, for the article. Gave a timeout probably 4-5 times while I was searching for the article and again before I hit sumbit. Checking now, it comes up immediatly.
Looks like they have a late but good load-balancing setup.
Google's commemoration of Veterans Day 2007, the first time it has honored the U.S. holiday It took nearly a decade, but Internet giant Google is finally honoring Veterans Day with a special holiday design for its famous logo. Users who log onto Google's home page today will see three World War I-era helmets capping the letters "o" and "e" in Google's name. The decoration is a marked departure for the company, which has come under fire from veterans' groups for ignoring American holidays such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day since Google's inception in 1999.
The firm, known for its widely used search engine, regularly modifies its logo to commemorate holidays, historical events and figures.
"Maybe all the pressure is paying off," said WND reader Donna Hunter of Philadelphia. "God bless all our soldiers!" When the Los Angeles Times asked the California-based firm about the issue earlier this year, spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger responded, "Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature. We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day." The Ledger newspaper of Lakeland, Fla., called that excuse "laughable."
As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52914
And for the ninth year in a row this past spring, Google declined to mark Memorial Day - something the company has done for the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55900
Just last month Google acknowledged an accomplishment of the communist Soviet Union, which launched the Sputnik space satellite 50 years ago. With the surprise launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the Soviet Union leaped ahead in the race for space between the U.S. and the communist empire. Sputnik's success followed the failure of the first two Project Vanguard launch attempts by the U.S. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57982
Google also has given special honors for astronomer Percival Lowell, artist Edvard Munch and Louis Braille, inventor of the writing system for the blind.
Other days commemorated included National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day.
Besides overlooking Memorial Day and Veterans Day until today, it also has ignored Christmas.
Google has been criticized for its one-sided political contributions and content policies:
Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy." In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.
As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats, and as a matter of fact, Al Gore is now a senior adviser to Google.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean. Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton.
So am I the first to see this article and think "Wow, darwin for consumers!" The stupid will have to return this or lose money so they will suffer for their stupidity. Good.
What did I assume about you that you did not allude to in your post? Kinda interesting that you use the word assume and still don't get it.
Your political views are not my concern at all but your public posting of your opinion on a discussion forum is pretty much a direct way to solicit others opinions on the topic you are discussing. Sorry if you missed the point of a forum.
I never said that you were a republican, "your party" might have been exaggerating your political knowledge and association since it seems from your postings that you don't actually understand even the basic terms being discussed here. So for that I apologize.
To come out and say that something others find humorous isn't funny is naive. The definition of "funny" is that people find it so. Not that you approve of it, so unless you were only stating that you don't find it funny, you are so un empathetic as to be no use in the discussion of the topic of humor.
On the topic of characters. To play a character is common for everybody, if you are asserting that Stewart is in character when doing his show. He appears to be in no more a role than any other personality that appears on TV, including yourself if you have ever been on camera. We act slightly different when being recorded for viewing by others, but this is not on the same level of acting as you are ascribing to him when you group them together. Try actually comparing his personal actions when not on camera to his on screen dialog, allowing some obviously written sketch humor that is apparent since he is a horrible actor, it's pretty much consistant, but I wouldn't state that I know implicitly how close or far these characters are, as you do with such vehemence. If you are saying that Stewart is in fact putting on a character in the same way that Colbert is, you are either lying since you show no way of discerning this unless you have some comparison of "normal" Stewart and can compare that to the on screen personality. Or you are simply assuming, in which case, hypocritical applause ring out from the crowd.
Go look up his biography and watch his interviews with the "real" journalists if you want to learn about the things you speak about.
The "no party represents me" line is a classic. The lone thinker in a sea of lemmings. Oh the burden of the intelligent. Please. With as many people in the world as there are, I'm pretty sure you have comrades. People with the same ideas as you. That you don't associate yourself with them and call yourselves a party is semantics. You vote as a party because of your shared ideas, you don't even have to vote to have the same effect, you'll alter the numbers by not voting as a group. It doesn't matter what you excuse yourself in your mind, you have opinions that are representative of your personal ideas and those control your actions, like typing them in a forum and calling people mildly retarded for having opinions that are in your words, "none of your concern".
But wait, theres more!
What would you like us to assume of your claim that two Comedy Central shows are subverting the left. Why would you say that? What are your motives in posting that in response to this topical discussion? Try not to have an agenda as you explain that to all of us. Just try not to expose ties to historical political parties that maintain similar views. Since there are hundreds. Try to even define the "left" yourself without showing us your bias in whatever direction it is. Try it.
So the insightful commentary that the key demo sees doesn't exist because you disagree with their political viewpoint and are bias in the other direction?
It's amazing how reality can change because you deny it. That you can define humorous comments as not being funny when it concerns your political party. When the humor is in the video playback of two completely different views from the same person as well as them denying they ever had the opposing viewpoint. The irony is that the mildly retarded couldn't find that funny since they wouldn't understand the comments like: "...you misunderstood mission accomplished, that's not what that really meant." or "Torture is what we do not do."
But that "mildly retarded" statement actually applies more to you than the demo. Since you apparently can't understand the humor inherent in those statements.
Cause the article is about these agencies letting people use their cell phones on planes and does not mention that it will only be for text.:)
The first plane I get on that allowes people to use their phones for voice and someone gets all loud I'm busting out my scrambler and we'll see how long they try re-connecting before complaining to the stewardess that their cell doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for personal privacy but I really can't see the loss of this sort of privacy outweighing the benifits of getting drunk drivers kept in jail or having a factual record for divorce hearings. When peoples safety and lives are at risk there needs to be some intelligent oversight of these issues but you can't have a blanket privacy enforcement. It just doesn't work. I think that a middle ground would apply, especially here. The database should require warrants and be overseen by a provacy advocate group as well as some seriously paranoid geeks for security. But the data should be there if required to prove innocence or guilt.
So boiled down, microsoft is saying that their software is the problem? That Office has "less secure" ways of opening formats than they could have?
My mistake, I've never had to use the utility only found it for a friend a while back.
Should have checked before linking to it.
"All the DRM stuff aside, point 3 is wrong. WMA is a lossy format, so you can't have a "lossless" conversion. Whenever you convert from lossy->lossy there will always be quality degradation. It's unavoidable unless you have a lossless file as the source."
If you purchase an encoded file that has already gone through a lossy compression that's just your fault for buying it. The rest of that statement is incorrect. To convert from any file to lossless does not degrade the content since the conversion to lossless is "lossless". The ipod supports lossless file formats so this is in no way lossy->lossy as you have stated. It is the same quality as the originally purchased file, witch again, was your fault for buying in the first place.
You can read up on this at: http://www.macworld.com/article/43560/2005/03/classicalipod.html
"Who said anything about DRM?"
The article.
That's uh, what it's about:
"Apple, however, deliberately designed the iPod's software so that it would only play a single protected digital format, Apple's FairPlay-modified AAC format," the complaint states. "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "
Some side notes:
1. This was known: http://dotnet.org.za/matt/archive/2004/02/20/460.aspx
2. The wma format itself is a non issue if you use the included iTunes software that ships with every ipod: http://www.apple.com/itunes/jukebox/importing.html
Quote "iTunes also converts unprotected WMA files to AAC."
3. If you have the rights to play it on your PC then you can convert wma files to your ipod without quality loss since it uses lossless conversion.
4. Apple created and supports a free program specifically designed to allow you to convert from wma as well as asf, wmv, wav, and ogg for the ipod: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/easywma.html
It looks to me like they just didn't want to pay to license a format that, by the complaints own addmission, isn't popular enough to hold on to 20% of the online music sales and is likely to be going down since the article even points out that DRM free Mp3 download services are gaining ground.
The second part of the monopoly isue is going to take some proving since the apple ceo posted this on the apple website:
Feb 6 2007
"Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It's hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music."
Since the ipod is left with 97% open format playback it's just a matter of deduction to see that the other cheaper players do support these open formats and some include protected wma (Zune) and could be easily puchased instead to use protected wma files directly if the consumer wanted. Free market and all that. If the feature was so desired then the players that support it would have more that a piddling share of the sales of music players.
Last note: Napster, Musicmatch, Walmart, Best Buy and Yahoo all adopted the protected WMA music format even though apple is supposed to have a monopoly on the online music industry, interesting. I would have thought that to sell more music they would have licensed formats that easily played back on the most popular music device, the ipod. You know, to make money.
And kinda funny since the Zune shipped without support for Microsofts own "Play for Sure" music.
Where do these people get this stuff?
Shipping a product without support for a desirable format? WTF? This is the whole reason we have the choice to buy hundreds of other brands of mp3 players that support both wma and ogg and mp3 as well as iTunes. I see no monopoly here.
Two sepearate issues:
1. This guy had child pornography on a computer he gave to others to work on, if there ware any issues with the graphics playback they would naturally start looking at the system more carefully and try and fix them as part of the dvd drive install process. If they happened to stumble upon files hidden in a directory like "drivers" or "video" they are required to report it to authorities. He gets his computer looked at by professionals and they determine if the files were his and look at the access records and take him to court.
2. If the files were not in a place where it would be required to look during the authorized installation of the DVd drive, the store is busted snooping through peoples computers. Didn't BestBuy get dinged for this not too far back with music files? Regardless of wether or not they copy the files, the act of accessing them witout consent is an issue that hasn't gotten to the point of laws (semi authorized PC repair file access/ not completely unauthorized hacking access)as far as I know but it is way over due. If the right of the store to go through your files is upheld or not restricted what is to stop employees from getting into your financial data or reading your email? That's an invasion of privacy by definition. It doesn't matter what they look at, it matters that they look for something other than within the scope of the repair.
I didn't think anyone would take it that way but I could see how you could have read it that way.
I was referring to the jump from perhaps 1/3G to multiple Gs of acceleration during passenger airlines takeoff.
As I understand it there are some combo engines but scramjet tech needs a fast takeoff speed before initializing or it's not worth it finantially to use.
I don't think we can handle the instant jump to mach 15
It's what amounts to stating something "to be taken as fact" VS an "opinion or interpretation".
I've been waiting for this to happen on Wikipedia for a while and still think it's likely for someone to bring the discovery atempt to get an editors identity after a slanderous edit on their page.
Some general things to think about when talking about evil/not evil:
Is it illegal to withhold information in a criminal trial before the defendant is found guilty? What good would the parts of the trial be where the person is still anonymous and cannot represent their side? I personally don't know about these things. IANAL
What happens when the person being slandered is denied the ability to stop it using the courts because there isn't enough evidence to justify revealing the IP address but the slander continues. How would you feel if this was happening to you and google declined to hep without a court order? How long would this take and can the damage ever be repaired?
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom of anonymous speech.
There is a specific law that the specific person is being investigated for possibly breaking. This is not invasion of privacy since it's a public post, not restriction of free speech since it is being investigated under the anti slander laws.
I think that this is just a case of responsibility, for the individual to be held accountable for what they say.
So now that it's modded 5 Funny, do you at least admit that others are finding it funny and you claiming "I just don't see any way that it can be taken as a joke." doesn't actually change the fact that others can and do?
Couldn't find the emoticon for making a "swish" noise and quickly passing a palm close over your head, but I hope someone can let you borrow their imagination so you can visualize the sentiment.
Jokes are only funny to those with a sense of humor. Others just start swinging.
Again the "recent" word being used without numerical thought. The game was released a year after the defacto emulator (zsnes) was created and was downloaded by millions a year after that. These numbers are not recent, they also don't define a craze but they at least help narrow the discussion.
Maybe I don't fully understand compression theory and this may very well be off topic, but this doesn't sound possible:
"losslessly compressed" audio file format.
Can someone explain how this compares to the original recording?
And am I confusing the analog to digital information loss with the compression (loss) part?
Get the above post modded up!
:)
This is the specific viewpoint of an intelligent individual reacting with something other than the reproductive organs or knee jerk emotional blindness.
This is the definition of a rational thought. Not a Troll or mindless opinion spewing like we see here all the time and especially in stories like these. This is thought. You don't have to agree with the emotional implications or throw names and personal stories, since any specific recount is negated simply by the shear number of identical stories from the cancer or drunk driver victims on the other side. This is above that petty narsisistic blithering.
It's math bitches. Mod it up.
It was down the whole time I searched for, copied and edited in the links, for the article. Gave a timeout probably 4-5 times while I was searching for the article and again before I hit sumbit. Checking now, it comes up immediatly.
Looks like they have a late but good load-balancing setup.
Here's the text from a google search and finding another blog carrying the text:
By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Google's commemoration of Veterans Day 2007, the first time it has honored the U.S. holiday
It took nearly a decade, but Internet giant Google is finally honoring Veterans Day with a special holiday design for its famous logo.
Users who log onto Google's home page today will see three World War I-era helmets capping the letters "o" and "e" in Google's name.
The decoration is a marked departure for the company, which has come under fire from veterans' groups for ignoring American holidays such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day since Google's inception in 1999.
The firm, known for its widely used search engine, regularly modifies its logo to commemorate holidays, historical events and figures.
"Maybe all the pressure is paying off," said WND reader Donna Hunter of Philadelphia. "God bless all our soldiers!"
When the Los Angeles Times asked the California-based firm about the issue earlier this year, spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger responded, "Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature. We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day."
The Ledger newspaper of Lakeland, Fla., called that excuse "laughable."
As WND reported last year, Google had no problem honoring the war dead of other countries, creating a special logo with poppies for Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52914
And for the ninth year in a row this past spring, Google declined to mark Memorial Day - something the company has done for the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55900
Just last month Google acknowledged an accomplishment of the communist Soviet Union, which launched the Sputnik space satellite 50 years ago.
With the surprise launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the Soviet Union leaped ahead in the race for space between the U.S. and the communist empire. Sputnik's success followed the failure of the first two Project Vanguard launch attempts by the U.S. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57982
Google also has given special honors for astronomer Percival Lowell, artist Edvard Munch and Louis Braille, inventor of the writing system for the blind.
Other days commemorated included National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day.
Besides overlooking Memorial Day and Veterans Day until today, it also has ignored Christmas.
Google has been criticized for its one-sided political contributions and content policies:
Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes
Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.
As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats, and as a matter of fact, Al Gore is now a senior adviser to Google.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.
Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton.
There needs to be a moderation system for editors.
So am I the first to see this article and think "Wow, darwin for consumers!"
The stupid will have to return this or lose money so they will suffer for their stupidity. Good.
Stopped reading at "shove it" since children aren't worth the time obviously.
What did I assume about you that you did not allude to in your post? Kinda interesting that you use the word assume and still don't get it.
Your political views are not my concern at all but your public posting of your opinion on a discussion forum is pretty much a direct way to solicit others opinions on the topic you are discussing. Sorry if you missed the point of a forum.
I never said that you were a republican, "your party" might have been exaggerating your political knowledge and association since it seems from your postings that you don't actually understand even the basic terms being discussed here. So for that I apologize.
To come out and say that something others find humorous isn't funny is naive. The definition of "funny" is that people find it so. Not that you approve of it, so unless you were only stating that you don't find it funny, you are so un empathetic as to be no use in the discussion of the topic of humor.
On the topic of characters. To play a character is common for everybody, if you are asserting that Stewart is in character when doing his show. He appears to be in no more a role than any other personality that appears on TV, including yourself if you have ever been on camera. We act slightly different when being recorded for viewing by others, but this is not on the same level of acting as you are ascribing to him when you group them together. Try actually comparing his personal actions when not on camera to his on screen dialog, allowing some obviously written sketch humor that is apparent since he is a horrible actor, it's pretty much consistant, but I wouldn't state that I know implicitly how close or far these characters are, as you do with such vehemence. If you are saying that Stewart is in fact putting on a character in the same way that Colbert is, you are either lying since you show no way of discerning this unless you have some comparison of "normal" Stewart and can compare that to the on screen personality. Or you are simply assuming, in which case, hypocritical applause ring out from the crowd.
Go look up his biography and watch his interviews with the "real" journalists if you want to learn about the things you speak about.
The "no party represents me" line is a classic. The lone thinker in a sea of lemmings. Oh the burden of the intelligent. Please. With as many people in the world as there are, I'm pretty sure you have comrades. People with the same ideas as you. That you don't associate yourself with them and call yourselves a party is semantics. You vote as a party because of your shared ideas, you don't even have to vote to have the same effect, you'll alter the numbers by not voting as a group. It doesn't matter what you excuse yourself in your mind, you have opinions that are representative of your personal ideas and those control your actions, like typing them in a forum and calling people mildly retarded for having opinions that are in your words, "none of your concern".
But wait, theres more!
What would you like us to assume of your claim that two Comedy Central shows are subverting the left. Why would you say that? What are your motives in posting that in response to this topical discussion? Try not to have an agenda as you explain that to all of us. Just try not to expose ties to historical political parties that maintain similar views. Since there are hundreds. Try to even define the "left" yourself without showing us your bias in whatever direction it is. Try it.
So the insightful commentary that the key demo sees doesn't exist because you disagree with their political viewpoint and are bias in the other direction?
It's amazing how reality can change because you deny it. That you can define humorous comments as not being funny when it concerns your political party. When the humor is in the video playback of two completely different views from the same person as well as them denying they ever had the opposing viewpoint. The irony is that the mildly retarded couldn't find that funny since they wouldn't understand the comments like: "...you misunderstood mission accomplished, that's not what that really meant." or "Torture is what we do not do."
But that "mildly retarded" statement actually applies more to you than the demo. Since you apparently can't understand the humor inherent in those statements.
Cause the article is about these agencies letting people use their cell phones on planes and does not mention that it will only be for text. :)
The first plane I get on that allowes people to use their phones for voice and someone gets all loud I'm busting out my scrambler and we'll see how long they try re-connecting before complaining to the stewardess that their cell doesn't work.
Absolute Best Solution I've Heard!
Seriously, it addresses the two problems and allows both sides their arguements.
Contact and consideration.
Why do these solutions escape the multimillion dollar investigation teams assigned to solving these issues?