Unless you completely reject a cellphone, deliberately reducing the functionality of the device you are carrying, why would you want to carry both a cell phone and a pager?
Simply because the cellphone's pager is not good enough? It always puzzled me, why would people carry more than one of pager and cellphone (much like why would anybody mix grep, sed, and awk in one command line, but I digress). My guess was, it had to do with the status, an attempt to derive importance from the number of gizmos carried...
I guess, I'm not the only one wondering, why carry more than of these devices — and that's why pagers are going away — as you found out...
The only plausible reason I can see, is when one of the devices is employer-provided and the employer's policy prohibits (or discourages) personal use. That's a sign of a silly employer, though — in appreciation of the employee being always reachable, they should allow personal use of the device (save for outright abuses).
Speaking of such, why don't you challenge the GGP poster and his attempts to dismiss the disparity of coverage, that's the point of TFA as insignificant?
I'll be really interested to see if this DONOR can be replicated.
If I understand it right, every successfully treated patient becomes a potential donor... Offering treatment can be made conditional on the patient's willingness to become a donor at least twice after healing. Spread the health, so to speak.
Just as easy loans encouraged people to dream big and buy a McMansion, big college loans are tempting students with too much Comp Lit and Frat Parties.
Hey, it was not my fault — I was encouraged to spend the money, that I'll be repaying for 10 years. There are more of us, debtors, than there are lenders, so let's elect the government, who will force them to ease or forgive our debts for good... Together we can!
The fish-tank icon chosen for the cover seems straight from this site... The site uses various fish-tanks on different pages... All of them are in the same style...
Not only did they cover both about Biden, it was about the only thing they covered.
According to your own link, the coverage of Biden was either positive, or neutral — and that's during the week of the debate, when he should've been committing suicide over the gross idiocies he uttered on national TV. And then your article admits, that, when the press were negative on Biden, the negativity was close to that reserved for McCain — McCain, who displayed nothing but perfectly clear lines of thought during all three debates.
At the end your article says: "The numbers seem to reinforce the traditional media view of vice presidential candidates. They can do little to help a candidate at the top of the ticket. But they can hurt him. When Biden made news, outside the debate, it was for apparent gaffes or for pungent attacks."
See, those were all gaffes and, maybe, some "pungent attacks" — something all public figures do. So nothing new to see here, run along with your silly questions on who kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon and when, or what's the ratio of our spending on Iraq and that on Afghanistan...
because I somehow doubt that Halliburton is trying to get the patent as a way to block others from patent trolling.
Wouldn't it be nice to see a principled opinion for a change? An opposition to a bad idea regardless of who is proposing it and why?
I mean, if it were, uhm, the Red Cross, or the ACLU, or a some cooperative, trying to patent patent-trolling, we'd have no problems right? Because they would only use it for The Greater Good and would never sell it — not even if they went bankrupt and had to liquidate all their property (including the "imaginary" kind)?
No, actually, the Republican side had nothing nearly as monumentally wrong as Biden. If they had, you would've seen it on every TV — from news coverage, to "talk shows", to Comedy Central. MSNBC would've run a "Lebanon History Special" with Middle East experts explaining, just how wrong the hapless Republican was...
What's your point?
If you look at the beginning of this thread, my point is quite obvious — that whoever broke into Obama campaign's computers, would've been throughly confused by Biden's senility.
They all voted Obama because they didn't buy in to the bull shit that you spew out.
Hey, I don't "spew" anything out — I just watched a debate. And what Joe Biden spewed out was terrifying, but, I guess, one needed to be paying attention.
You don't care about truth. You care about spinning it to whatever you want the world to look like.
[Wipes off opponent's saliva. Throws out the napkin. Regains composure.] Brkello, you've already admitted, that your choice of vice President doesn't know Lebanon from a hole in his butt. So, why are you attacking my person? The person, who pointed the truth out to you, for a change... A change you can, actually, believe in... [Shrugs and walks away in disgust.]
You're linking to posts on Slashdot that reference your own posts on Slashdot.
Yes, when having the same debate over again, it is quite natural to refer to what you already said — unless it was wrong, which I wasn't...
The media coverage is PART of the strategy.
Well, there I was thinking, we were choosing a better president (and vice-president). Turns out, we were picking a better media-manipulator!
Back to the original topic, though, what we are discussing here is the media's bias. It does not take much talent to manipulate someone, who is willing (nay, anxious!) to be manipulated.
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
MSNBC would've had a "Lebanon History Special" at prime time to show the entire nation, just how pathetically wrong that statement was — and on how many levels!
But it was Biden and up until very recently even a well-meaning slashdotter (not some Joe Carpenter) didn't realize, just how far from this Universe the man, chosen by Obama for his "foreign policy credentials," really lives.
McCain chose Palin. That was part of his strategy to energize the Religious Right AND an attempt to get the female vote.
And Obama chose Biden. That was part of his strategy to alleviate the concerns of his own foreign policy inexperience and reduce the impact of racial prejudices. That one strategy worked and the other didn't is works of the press and their now-documented bias towards Obama. The media — dishonestly — claimed, that Palin's inexperience trumps Obama's (as if they ran for the same post!), while lookingthe otherway as Joe Biden mounted one lunacy over another.
Now that Obama has won, we might see more penance from the reporters and editors. We may even get some buyer's remorse from the voters. But they'll be justified, claiming, the papers misled them. This will be studied in journalism courses as a great example, of how not to write...
But every THIRD day, Obama would get THREE stories and McCain would only get TWO stories.
Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?
Actually, yes I will, because McCain's losing ratio was less than his "coverage" ratio. And then, of course, there is the content of the stories — it is not just the quantity, you know... And that's been near-universally in Obama/Biden's direction.
For example, think of the word "gaffe" for a second — it is more famous already, than the word "snafu" was at the end of Clinton's term. Every mistake made by Biden — from an actual gaffe ("Hillary Clinton would've been a better choice") to a flabbergasting moronity ("We and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon") — has been smoothed-over by the press, while Sarah Palin's inability to name another act by her boss (she did name one) was replayed on comedy and "news" channels umpteen times.
Obama is not a socialist, not even close. I should know, I am one.
Regardless of where between Obama and Stalin you are, Obama is classified as "Socialist-lite". In other words, there will be no concentration camps, but severe economic inefficiencies... No one can make everyone equally rich, but in trying everyone becomes equally poor.
that people united around a common purpose can achieve great things.
Which "great things", other than electing Barack Obama, can the method claim? Would we be as cheerful for KarlRove.gov celebrating his no-lesser achievements?
Everything is in simple english without a trace of washington speak.
Woo-hoo! A StraightTalk Express!
The copyright for the content is held by...
Copyrighted content under.gov-domain? Khmm... I didn't realize, Obama-supporters believe in imaginary property at all...
thus making the Creative brand-name meaningless as a representation of consistent features and functionality.
But GPL would not protect against the feature-removal either. And feature-additions, even if they aren't fed back to Creative, still help Creative sell more hardware. That such sales would be under a different brand is an independent issue — if Creative viewed it as a problem, they wouldn't be letting others buy their chips in the first place...
No, the much more likely reason for Creative's choice, is the buzz — GPL has it, and BSD does not...
Maybe Creative would like assurance that they receive any enhancements made to the code.
Why would they care — they are just selling hardware. If anybody makes any improvements, that they would want to proprietize (?), well, Creative just might sell a few more items...
You know, the word "gaffe" has already been made more famous by Obama/Biden in 2 months, than the word "snafu" — by Clintons in 8 years. But this was not a gaffe, a term defined (thank you, WordNet) as: a socially awkward or tactless act. A gaffe — such as Biden's statement, that Hillary would've been a better choice than him — is still factually correct, it is just "awkward or tactless".
What Biden said — and what I quoted was only one of the pearls — was not a gaffe, and no amount of spin can help that...
We all know Biden has plenty of foreign policy experience. Experts in foreign affairs say he does.
Oh, well, you should've started with that! Of course, if you say, that the experts say, it is true, then it must be true. It is just that somewhere higher in this thread a plea was made to concentrate on "people's actual articulated positions", rather than "hearsay"...
I only listened to Biden once — he never came to my state, which Democrats take for granted. I was quite astounded, that his "actual articulated positions" were so factually wrong. And a few days later, Ann Coulter has summarized it rather well — and added one, that I didn't notice myself. You can discount her for a partisan hack she is, but she didn't invent any of his words...
We also know he is also prone to some gaffes.
I'm sorry, but, as already stated, this was not a "gaffe". Bush had gaffes: "Don't misunderstimate," — that's a gaffe or, perhaps, a misstatement, for the intended meaning is clear and obvious. Biden — as quoted — was either lying trying to burnish his and Obama's credentials, or simply having a senior moment on national TV.
Much was made of the Bush's funky "nukular", even though, it was still perfectly clear, what he meant. But when Biden is going to be needed as a foreign policy expert, who can possibly rely on his advice?
I borrowed the phrase from a certain famous TV person, who became rather famous for grilling Sarah Palin with just such a phrase...
Are you honestly already attacking Obama's foreign policy when they have yet to take a single action?
Perhaps, you need to read the entire thread... I claimed, jokingly, that whatever an adversary may find on Obama campaign's computers, they'll be thoroughly confused by Joe Biden's statements, such as the one I quoted.
Brkello seems to think, there is nothing wrong with Biden's statements, and if anyone thinks otherwise, it can only be due to their watching Fox News.
So, I asked Brkello to suggest a news-source, which could've helped me (or anybody!) to make sense of the Biden's statement. Brkello responded with a change of subject, and I asked him again. He wouldn't respond — maybe, you can help out?
Which news-source could possibly help make sense of the statement: "When the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, Barack and I wanted NATO forces moved in to fill the vacuum. Otherwise Hezbollah would walk back in."
Note, the sentence above has already been edited by another Obama-supporter so that it does not, at least, contradict itself — unlike Biden's original words found in the transcripts. It only contradicts (on many levels and sub-levels) the facts from very recent history, which a "foreign policy wonk" — as Biden was presented to the nation — should know rather well...
So, do you think, you can help me find a news-source, that would help reconcile Biden's words with reality? Or will you take the "poorly worded" excuse and skip? Come on, what are afraid of — your team won, you can admit now, that the chosen vice-President is a senile doofus...
This would've allowed for easier inclusion of the driver in BSD systems, without any threat to Creative — whatever extra freedoms are granted by the BSD-license compared to GPL, they are useless in the case of a vendor releasing a driver for their own hardware.
Keep plugging your ears and focusing on distractions. It is why you lost the election.
Brkello, I'm going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point:
Please, point me to a news-source, according to which Biden's statement about USA and France kicking out Hezbollah from Lebanon makes sense. Thank you.
"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."
[...] "We're not supporting clean coal"
And here is the discussion of Obama's interview, where he says, among other things:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Yeah, the first link on the subject, that came up is openly partisan. But you aren't accusing them of inventing Obama's quote, are you? And it is not "torn out of context" either, because, uhm, there is a lot of context there.
Please, point me to a news-source, according to which Biden's statement about USA and France kicking out Hezbollah from Lebanon makes sense. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you completely reject a cellphone, deliberately reducing the functionality of the device you are carrying, why would you want to carry both a cell phone and a pager?
Simply because the cellphone's pager is not good enough? It always puzzled me, why would people carry more than one of pager and cellphone (much like why would anybody mix grep, sed, and awk in one command line, but I digress). My guess was, it had to do with the status, an attempt to derive importance from the number of gizmos carried...
I guess, I'm not the only one wondering, why carry more than of these devices — and that's why pagers are going away — as you found out...
The only plausible reason I can see, is when one of the devices is employer-provided and the employer's policy prohibits (or discourages) personal use. That's a sign of a silly employer, though — in appreciation of the employee being always reachable, they should allow personal use of the device (save for outright abuses).
Speaking of such, why don't you challenge the GGP poster and his attempts to dismiss the disparity of coverage, that's the point of TFA as insignificant?
If I understand it right, every successfully treated patient becomes a potential donor... Offering treatment can be made conditional on the patient's willingness to become a donor at least twice after healing. Spread the health, so to speak.
Where there is an addiction, there needs to be treatment. Mandatory, if need be — for the betterment of the society, of course.
Hey, it was not my fault — I was encouraged to spend the money, that I'll be repaying for 10 years. There are more of us, debtors, than there are lenders, so let's elect the government, who will force them to ease or forgive our debts for good... Together we can!
Oh, wait, we just did!..
The fish-tank icon chosen for the cover seems straight from this site... The site uses various fish-tanks on different pages... All of them are in the same style...
According to your own link, the coverage of Biden was either positive, or neutral — and that's during the week of the debate, when he should've been committing suicide over the gross idiocies he uttered on national TV. And then your article admits, that, when the press were negative on Biden, the negativity was close to that reserved for McCain — McCain, who displayed nothing but perfectly clear lines of thought during all three debates.
At the end your article says: "The numbers seem to reinforce the traditional media view of vice presidential candidates. They can do little to help a candidate at the top of the ticket. But they can hurt him. When Biden made news, outside the debate, it was for apparent gaffes or for pungent attacks."
See, those were all gaffes and, maybe, some "pungent attacks" — something all public figures do. So nothing new to see here, run along with your silly questions on who kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon and when, or what's the ratio of our spending on Iraq and that on Afghanistan...
Wouldn't it be nice to see a principled opinion for a change? An opposition to a bad idea regardless of who is proposing it and why?
I mean, if it were, uhm, the Red Cross, or the ACLU, or a some cooperative, trying to patent patent-trolling, we'd have no problems right? Because they would only use it for The Greater Good and would never sell it — not even if they went bankrupt and had to liquidate all their property (including the "imaginary" kind)?
No, actually, the Republican side had nothing nearly as monumentally wrong as Biden. If they had, you would've seen it on every TV — from news coverage, to "talk shows", to Comedy Central. MSNBC would've run a "Lebanon History Special" with Middle East experts explaining, just how wrong the hapless Republican was...
If you look at the beginning of this thread, my point is quite obvious — that whoever broke into Obama campaign's computers, would've been throughly confused by Biden's senility.
Hey, I don't "spew" anything out — I just watched a debate. And what Joe Biden spewed out was terrifying, but, I guess, one needed to be paying attention.
[Wipes off opponent's saliva. Throws out the napkin. Regains composure.] Brkello, you've already admitted, that your choice of vice President doesn't know Lebanon from a hole in his butt. So, why are you attacking my person? The person, who pointed the truth out to you, for a change... A change you can, actually, believe in... [Shrugs and walks away in disgust.]
Yes, when having the same debate over again, it is quite natural to refer to what you already said — unless it was wrong, which I wasn't...
Well, there I was thinking, we were choosing a better president (and vice-president). Turns out, we were picking a better media-manipulator!
Back to the original topic, though, what we are discussing here is the media's bias. It does not take much talent to manipulate someone, who is willing (nay, anxious!) to be manipulated.
They did cover gaffes — socially awkward or tactless acts. But not the "gaffes" — stupidities and outright lunacies smoothed-over as mere gaffes. For example, if it were anyone from the opposing ticket, claiming:
MSNBC would've had a "Lebanon History Special" at prime time to show the entire nation, just how pathetically wrong that statement was — and on how many levels!
But it was Biden and up until very recently even a well-meaning slashdotter (not some Joe Carpenter) didn't realize, just how far from this Universe the man, chosen by Obama for his "foreign policy credentials," really lives.
And Obama chose Biden. That was part of his strategy to alleviate the concerns of his own foreign policy inexperience and reduce the impact of racial prejudices. That one strategy worked and the other didn't is works of the press and their now-documented bias towards Obama. The media — dishonestly — claimed, that Palin's inexperience trumps Obama's (as if they ran for the same post!), while looking the other way as Joe Biden mounted one lunacy over another.
Now that Obama has won, we might see more penance from the reporters and editors. We may even get some buyer's remorse from the voters. But they'll be justified, claiming, the papers misled them. This will be studied in journalism courses as a great example, of how not to write...
Actually, yes I will, because McCain's losing ratio was less than his "coverage" ratio. And then, of course, there is the content of the stories — it is not just the quantity, you know... And that's been near-universally in Obama/Biden's direction.
For example, think of the word "gaffe" for a second — it is more famous already, than the word "snafu" was at the end of Clinton's term. Every mistake made by Biden — from an actual gaffe ("Hillary Clinton would've been a better choice") to a flabbergasting moronity ("We and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon") — has been smoothed-over by the press, while Sarah Palin's inability to name another act by her boss (she did name one) was replayed on comedy and "news" channels umpteen times.
Didn't work for Bush in 2004 that well, did it?
The only thing making this election more historic than all earlier ones is the dishonesty of grotesque one-sidedness of the main media's coverage.
Regardless of where between Obama and Stalin you are, Obama is classified as "Socialist-lite". In other words, there will be no concentration camps, but severe economic inefficiencies... No one can make everyone equally rich, but in trying everyone becomes equally poor.
Go get yourself a new T-shirt.
Are you referring to these Democrats, or these ones?
Which "great things", other than electing Barack Obama, can the method claim? Would we be as cheerful for KarlRove.gov celebrating his no-lesser achievements?
Woo-hoo! A StraightTalk Express!
Copyrighted content under .gov-domain? Khmm... I didn't realize, Obama-supporters believe in imaginary property at all...
But GPL would not protect against the feature-removal either. And feature-additions, even if they aren't fed back to Creative, still help Creative sell more hardware. That such sales would be under a different brand is an independent issue — if Creative viewed it as a problem, they wouldn't be letting others buy their chips in the first place...
No, the much more likely reason for Creative's choice, is the buzz — GPL has it, and BSD does not...
Why would they care — they are just selling hardware. If anybody makes any improvements, that they would want to proprietize (?), well, Creative just might sell a few more items...
You know, the word "gaffe" has already been made more famous by Obama/Biden in 2 months, than the word "snafu" — by Clintons in 8 years. But this was not a gaffe, a term defined (thank you, WordNet) as: a socially awkward or tactless act. A gaffe — such as Biden's statement, that Hillary would've been a better choice than him — is still factually correct, it is just "awkward or tactless".
What Biden said — and what I quoted was only one of the pearls — was not a gaffe, and no amount of spin can help that...
Oh, well, you should've started with that! Of course, if you say, that the experts say, it is true, then it must be true. It is just that somewhere higher in this thread a plea was made to concentrate on "people's actual articulated positions", rather than "hearsay"...
I only listened to Biden once — he never came to my state, which Democrats take for granted. I was quite astounded, that his "actual articulated positions" were so factually wrong. And a few days later, Ann Coulter has summarized it rather well — and added one, that I didn't notice myself. You can discount her for a partisan hack she is, but she didn't invent any of his words...
I'm sorry, but, as already stated, this was not a "gaffe". Bush had gaffes: "Don't misunderstimate," — that's a gaffe or, perhaps, a misstatement, for the intended meaning is clear and obvious. Biden — as quoted — was either lying trying to burnish his and Obama's credentials, or simply having a senior moment on national TV.
Much was made of the Bush's funky "nukular", even though, it was still perfectly clear, what he meant. But when Biden is going to be needed as a foreign policy expert, who can possibly rely on his advice?
I borrowed the phrase from a certain famous TV person, who became rather famous for grilling Sarah Palin with just such a phrase...
Perhaps, you need to read the entire thread... I claimed, jokingly, that whatever an adversary may find on Obama campaign's computers, they'll be thoroughly confused by Joe Biden's statements, such as the one I quoted.
Brkello seems to think, there is nothing wrong with Biden's statements, and if anyone thinks otherwise, it can only be due to their watching Fox News.
So, I asked Brkello to suggest a news-source, which could've helped me (or anybody!) to make sense of the Biden's statement. Brkello responded with a change of subject, and I asked him again. He wouldn't respond — maybe, you can help out?
Which news-source could possibly help make sense of the statement: "When the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, Barack and I wanted NATO forces moved in to fill the vacuum. Otherwise Hezbollah would walk back in."
Note, the sentence above has already been edited by another Obama-supporter so that it does not, at least, contradict itself — unlike Biden's original words found in the transcripts. It only contradicts (on many levels and sub-levels) the facts from very recent history, which a "foreign policy wonk" — as Biden was presented to the nation — should know rather well...
So, do you think, you can help me find a news-source, that would help reconcile Biden's words with reality? Or will you take the "poorly worded" excuse and skip? Come on, what are afraid of — your team won, you can admit now, that the chosen vice-President is a senile doofus...
This would've allowed for easier inclusion of the driver in BSD systems, without any threat to Creative — whatever extra freedoms are granted by the BSD-license compared to GPL, they are useless in the case of a vendor releasing a driver for their own hardware.
Brkello, I'm going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point: Please, point me to a news-source, according to which Biden's statement about USA and France kicking out Hezbollah from Lebanon makes sense. Thank you.
Oh, please... Here is Biden saying:
And here is the discussion of Obama's interview, where he says, among other things:
Yeah, the first link on the subject, that came up is openly partisan. But you aren't accusing them of inventing Obama's quote, are you? And it is not "torn out of context" either, because, uhm, there is a lot of context there.
Please, point me to a news-source, according to which Biden's statement about USA and France kicking out Hezbollah from Lebanon makes sense. Thank you.