Here's one reason botnets thrive: In addition to the fact that the perpetrators are likely to get away with it, per one article, They face up to six years in prison if convicted of hacking charges..
6 years max? For hacking 12 million computers? Ignoring the intrusions, how much did it cost the victims in labor and downtime to fix it? Hundreds of millions? And add to that the damage they did with the botnet; I don't know what this one did, but it could be spam, DDoS attacks, stolen personal info, extortion, etc.
Also, I still don't understand why the U.S. government doesn't treat these wide-spread, expensive crimes as a priority. Given the scale of these crimes, there should be a large task force pursuing them. I get the sense they are looked on as computer problems, not crimes.
"Tragedy is I stub my toe. Comedy is you fall in a manhole and die." - Mel Brooks
More seriously, I addressed what you said in my original post. And there are more human consequences: Tough luck for the people who will lose their jobs at Toyota because of lost sales, and the pension funds that will lose money on their Toyota shares, reducing the pensions of retirees.
What is a debate for us is life-changing for others.
Interesting how history is written. Nothing will change the story of the Pinto in the minds of the public, no matter what the facts. Of course, they didn't have Slashdot back then to straighten out these issues.
Agreed that there are almost certainly more. But even if there are 10 times the reported number, or 100 times, it's still not a big health or safety issue.
I think the anti-Toyota mania is getting a little out of hand. The problem caused 34 deaths in 10 years. Given the tens (hundreds?) of millions of Toyotas on the road, it's actually not a big deal. It's an unimaginable tragedy to the people and families that died, and it should be fixed. But as a public safety issue, more people died of lightening strikes and bee stings during that period. Heart disease kills over 1,000 Americans per day. Let's keep it in perspective.
Now we don't trust their firmware updates? I think their safety record is pretty good. You're driving their car at death-defying speeds, aren't you?
The concept of a firmware update for your car is pretty interesting, though.
What happens when they get higher resolution, are sensitive to a wider spectrum, tunable images (contrast, enhancement, etc), connected to storage for recording and playback, cameras pointing in various directions or even remote... who will get them? You don't think you'll get a job with that old wetware, do you?
The OptimizeGoogle Firefox add-on will do it for you. Among many other useful features, it adds a "filter" link beneath each result, allowing you to filter that domain or URL (you specify the exact filter).
It's true that in aggregate authoritarian regimes have done well economically, for a period, in places such as Chile, Taiwan and South Korea (of course, we don't know how well democracy would have worked in those times and places). But they only did well in aggregate; some citizens did well and some very badly.
... part of this success will be in authoritarian regime that controls things like exchange rate and suppresses workers that want higher wages etc....
Exactly; some people in the country make a lot of money, but those workers did not, and some suffered much worse; in total, the economy grew. In Taiwan, tens of thousands were murdered in the 2-28 incident, and throughout authoritarian rule, 3-4,000 were executed and 30,000 were imprisoned and often tortured for political crimes. In Chile, Pinochet murdered 3,000 people, and arrested and tortured 30,000. South Koreans endured similar experiences. The workers, the murdered, the tortured, the imprisoned, and their families often did not see benefits. The economic prowess of authoritarian regimes is often represented by GDP growth, but that's an aggregate statistic of the total economic growth and it covers up great suffering.
No government is all roses -- I can't think of one that is -- that's not the standard by which they are measured. It's a good sign when politicians can be removed from office and even jailed. Politically, economically, and by almost any other measure, Taiwan and Japan are much better off than China.
(For the record, Taiwan's first democratically elected President, Lee Teng-hui, is not in jail; a successor, Chen Shui-bian was jailed after he left office.)
Clearly, you've never met an actual Chinese person. Do you honestly think they don't know what's going on? No, they know. They just don't care. They're lives have been massively transformed for the better. Especially for those on the coast. (The western interior is another story.) They don't want to rock the boat. Everything is going swimingly for them. Why change?
As a Tsinghua student, Dr. Shi joined the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square. As a registered Democrat in the United States, he participated eagerly in elections. "Multiparty democracy is perfect for the United States," he said. "But believing that multiparty democracy is right for the United States does not mean it is right for China."
How many have you met, out of 1.2 billion, that you can speak for the Chinese people? Have you met those in prisons or those who can't get jobs because of their political beliefs? What about those who can't practice their religion? What about those who censor their beliefs so they can keep their jobs? What about those in Tibet? In Xinjiang? What about those protesting against the government all over China, because their rights are ignored and trampled by a political establishment which has no responsibility to the people (because they can't be voted out of office)? Why must the Communist Party jail democracy advocates and censor the Internet, if their people don't want it?
Your claims repeat the Communist Party line (and quote people who risk their jobs if they disagree), which itself is the same old canard despots worldwide have used: It's a Western cultural thing, not appropriate in our culture; our people don't want it. (And if they say they do, we put them in jail.) But the facts are overwhelming: Democracy and freedom are desires and values universal to humanity. The people of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and others, representing almost every other non-Western culture, have adopted it with great success. Only those who are forcibly repressed by their government are denied it. And all over the world, nearly 100% of the most prosperous, stable countries are democracies.
Every democracy started out as undemocratic and unfree (including the U.S. if you count the colonial era). To say the people of China lack the motivation or ability to seize it for themselves is patronizing and insulting. They have come so far from the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, when a totalitarian dictator's incompetence and obscene disregard killed tens of millions and reduced their country to shambles, to today's relatively stable government and rocketing prosperity. There is no reason to think they will not continue and eventually enjoy the freedom and prosperity that so many others have achieved.
No matter what the headhunter or someone else does, your integrity is attached to you as an individual. If you are dishonest, nobody thinks 'ABC contractor is dishonest', they think 'Captain Sarcastic is dishonest', and that follows you when you leave ABC. In fact, if they are being dishonest or even just reckless with the truth, I would avoid association with ABC; that also might follow you wherever you go.
You also should demonstrate good judgment by avoiding embarrassing ABC, but if pressed, just say 'I'm sorry, there must have been some miscommunication, my real experience is...' or 'there must be some mistake, let me get you a corrected resume'. Don't speculate on ABC's motives, which you probably don't know anyway. (and don't need to know; intentionally or not, ABC is unreliable). Even silently allowing important mistatements to pass is deceitful.
Integrity is a necessary trait for anyone I work with. Others certainly don't mind or even admire someone who can deceive effectively; if someone like that hires you, you know what to expect from them.
Isn't it wonderful to be in the world today, where everyone can be racist against whites without fear of reprisal?
I agree that racism is bad in any form, but I'm very concerned about the level of discussion about it. We've been manipulated by amoral, power-hungry leaders into indulging our anger and acting on our worst instincts. Outrage, hatred, and its consequences serve only the public figures who instigate it; the public suffers from division, social instability, political gridlock, and the often violent consequences. The individuals who, prodded into outrage, commit immoral acts, must along with their victims live the rest of their lives with the consequences; the leaders are unscathed. Their words -- the words of Bill O'Reilly or Al Sharpton -- are weapons, and you are their target.
It's a very old strategy, called Populism, used by leaders from the beginning of time because it works so well. Stoking ethnic tension is an obvious way to implement it. Here's the way I look at it: Humans naturally have a tribal instinct, controlled by our morality and societal pressure; all you have to do is encourage it, find justifications for it (victimhood is popular -- find problems and blow them up into catastrophes), and set the example that its socially acceptable, and those obstacles to our worst instincts melt away. Light the match, and the fire will spread. Everyone from Milosevic to the Rwandans Hutus, to yes, a certain German leader, have used it to great affect. The harm it caused can never be undone.
I can see how it benefited those leaders. I can see how it benefits people like O'Reilly and Al Sharpton -- If it wasn't for the outrage they stoke, who would they be? What attention/ratings would they get? But I can't see how it benefits our society. Is there anything admirable about a society torn by hatred and racial tension? Has that helped its citizens? Made it a better world for their children?
Did Lou Dobbs submit that? Please preserve/. from this nonsense; I thought this website was supposed to post "Stuff that matters". All this post offers is an outlet for outrage, self-righteousness, and ugly xenophobia -- natural human traits, but not healthy or helpful ones that we benefit from encouraging. How many people have those websites affected? Isn't there something more consequential going on, that we can put on the front page of/.?
I've used BetterPrivacy for a little while. I'm using the options below, and I've never had a problem with any websites that I could trace to it:
- Delete Flash cookies on Firefox exit
- Also delete settings.sol
- Also delete empty cookie folders
- Disable DOMStorage
- Disable Ping Tracking
When I first ran it, I was surprised to discover Flash cookies from websites I hadn't visited in years. Thanks Netticat!
We re-watched the original miniseries recently; what a good, gripping story. At the time, I liked the show because it was more "Fi" than "Sci": Good characters, interesting plot, sophisticated issues (esp. the political issues). They took advantage of the flexibility of 'Sci' not to provide gee-whiz gizmos and superpowers that are no more meaningful than special effects, but to provide a unique setting that was not possible in real-world setting.
Re-watch the original mini-series yourself and you can't miss how far the show has come, but in a completely different (and in my mind, wrong) direction. The characters and acting have become extreme and overdramatc. The political issues hang around, but in often they are absurd (how about the politics of ditching all your technology? It was handled by one sentence: 'It's surprising there was no dissension' -- it sure is!). And the show is dominated by the Sci -- mysticism, cylon projections, the final 5, etc etc etc. Booooring. Anyone can make that stuff up as they go along; what does it mean?
And the conclusion was so poorly thought out that the writers are guilty of dereliction of duty. Returning to the decision to abandon all technology: Perhaps they should recall that our ancestors lived short, brutal lives, and they grew up with the skills to survive in that environment; our heroes have no idea how to hunt a buffalo with a spear, clean it, skin it, and preserve the meat for the winter. Just think of this little inconvenience: No salt, no pepper, no spices; no vitamins! When the first drought -- or the locusts, or neighboring tribe or a pack of baboons -- comes and they run out of food, and half of them die off, it won't seem like such a good idea. When people start dying from simple infections because there are no antibiotics, when women start dying in childbirth, when most children don't survive to adulthood, when the leading killer becomes starvation instead of obesity, they may remember the benefits of technology. Sure, we can close our eyes to all these problems, but couldn't the writers have made an effort to tell a story with some plausibility?
Like many movies and shows, it seems like the writers ran out of time or funding, and just whipped something together to fulfill their obligation to finish the story. Their audience should demand more.
Nobody said the MSM is perfect or even good, only that it's better than the alternative. Sort of like Democracy, which is terrible, but is still the best option.
However, the "MSM" covers a very large number of media sources, all over the world, in every town, and in every format (newspaper, magazine, TV, web, etc.). I've found many of those things you wish for, including in-depth policy analysis and well researched coverage that represents both sides. There is plenty of media that doesn't provide those things (I think because most of the public doesn't demand it), including Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann too. I ignore them and read the quality stuff. Here are a few great MSM resources you might like:
* ProPublica - Investigative reporting covering the U.S.
* Council on Foreign Relations - International issues, especially try their Backgrounders, which are very well done.
* The Economist - Economics and finance, as well as international news and analysis.
I support open source software, I contribute my time and money to many projects and have five FOSS applications open right now, but I think the Ubuntu story was pretty good; imperfect, but reasonable. I don't think Ubuntu is suitable for most end-users, due to the basic compatibility issues she described. I wish it were otherwise, but that doesn't change the news.
Of course random, unknown people are not trustworthy. While it's trendy to criticize the "MSM" and 'old' media, they do have one essential advantage over crowd-sourced information: MSM publications have a reputation to protect:
1) They are not anonymous. As has often been observed, people are willing to say things anonymously on the Internet that they would never say to anyone's face, or if anyone knew who was speaking.
2) They have an enormous investment in their reputation: Millions (or more) in business, hundreds of jobs, and a reputation that's been built up over decades or more.
3) They have a track record: You know (or can know) the history of their integrity.
Certainly that does not make MSM 100% trustworthy; they are not. But at least when I read David Pogue in the NY Times, for example, I know whom I'm dealing with and I can make a judgment about the chance of and degree to which he might be shilling something.
Many bloggers complain that the "MSM" (that is, professional journalists) filter the news, and they want to bypass that filter. But the reality is that blogs are often a second filter on top of the first one. They take the content generated by the professionals (sometimes an article, sometimes some words taken out of context), and the blogger frames it with their own perspective and context.
Why would anyone want some random person adding yet another filter to their news? In large part, I think it's because the bloggers are willing to offer a level of info-tainment that the professionals won't: Uncorroborated rumor, conspiracy theory, unfounded amateur analysis, and outraged or outrageous opinions.
(Of course, there are many good aspects to blogs (here I am reading/.) and there are lousy professionals.)
Perhaps OeLeWaPpErKe was exaggerating to make a point, but there are many large exaggerations in the parent:
When you see an American article, in English, you always see "AP", "AFP" under it.
Many news organization reprint wire service articles, but: 1) There are many other wire services (Reuters and the AP being the largest, I think, and you can see a list at the preceeding link); 2) News organization also do their own original reporting; the wire services are usually a minority of their content and an organization like the New York Times uses almost exclusively original reporting. I doubt the BBC uses AP or AFP stories (though maybe they use some Reuters). Watch a press conference; where are all those journalists from? Just the AP and AFP?
AP stands for associated press, which is not American
I assume that's a typo, but the AP is American, if that matters. The AP is a non-profit cooperative owned by American daily newspapers. AFAIK, the idea is that it's not cost-effective or useful for every daily newspaper to send a reporter to, for example, the big football game this weekend. So they formed a cooperative and send one reporter.
The AFP is not, AFAIK, nearly as large in English-speaking markets as the AP and Reuters.
They cooperate with one another, hardly ever making double coverage, so in practice an article with AP under it might have come from AFP.
I don't know about that; I've seen plenty of overlapping coverage. AFP is, not suprisingly, much less focused on the English-speaking world than AP is, but they both cover all major stories. Here are AP and AFP headlines from Yahoo!:
So 1/3rd (in theory, in practice more) of all the news you see has been collected by French reporters, or at least reporters paid by french people.
First, who cares. But that number is not nearly accurate. Much/most of the news you see is produced by journalists in the organization that publishes it; what do you think all those journalists on all the TV, print, and website news organizations do all day? Also, as I said above, AFP has much less presence than AP and Reuters in the English-speaking world and there are other newswires, so they produce much less than 1/3 of the content. I'd guess it's more like 3% in English publications, but that's just a guess and of course it depends on how you measure it (stories published on newswires? stories published by news organizations (e.g., CNN)? stories read?).
The President's data -- the most confidential and valuable in the world -- stored on a nice compact, portable 6 pound device, which was designed for someone to walk away with. It's probably safe in the Oval Office, but what happens when he takes it someplace else? Is the wifi radio on? In ad hoc or infrastructure mode?
And if he's not taking it with him, why does he need a laptop (has he filled out the form providing a business-case justification for this purchase?). It doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. I'm sure we can find another way to provide him with the resources he needs, independent of his location, with a little better physical security.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one reason botnets thrive: In addition to the fact that the perpetrators are likely to get away with it, per one article, They face up to six years in prison if convicted of hacking charges..
6 years max? For hacking 12 million computers? Ignoring the intrusions, how much did it cost the victims in labor and downtime to fix it? Hundreds of millions? And add to that the damage they did with the botnet; I don't know what this one did, but it could be spam, DDoS attacks, stolen personal info, extortion, etc.
Also, I still don't understand why the U.S. government doesn't treat these wide-spread, expensive crimes as a priority. Given the scale of these crimes, there should be a large task force pursuing them. I get the sense they are looked on as computer problems, not crimes.
"Tragedy is I stub my toe. Comedy is you fall in a manhole and die." - Mel Brooks
More seriously, I addressed what you said in my original post. And there are more human consequences: Tough luck for the people who will lose their jobs at Toyota because of lost sales, and the pension funds that will lose money on their Toyota shares, reducing the pensions of retirees.
What is a debate for us is life-changing for others.
Interesting how history is written. Nothing will change the story of the Pinto in the minds of the public, no matter what the facts. Of course, they didn't have Slashdot back then to straighten out these issues.
Agreed that there are almost certainly more. But even if there are 10 times the reported number, or 100 times, it's still not a big health or safety issue.
I think the anti-Toyota mania is getting a little out of hand. The problem caused 34 deaths in 10 years. Given the tens (hundreds?) of millions of Toyotas on the road, it's actually not a big deal. It's an unimaginable tragedy to the people and families that died, and it should be fixed. But as a public safety issue, more people died of lightening strikes and bee stings during that period. Heart disease kills over 1,000 Americans per day. Let's keep it in perspective.
Now we don't trust their firmware updates? I think their safety record is pretty good. You're driving their car at death-defying speeds, aren't you?
The concept of a firmware update for your car is pretty interesting, though.
What happens when they get higher resolution, are sensitive to a wider spectrum, tunable images (contrast, enhancement, etc), connected to storage for recording and playback, cameras pointing in various directions or even remote ... who will get them? You don't think you'll get a job with that old wetware, do you?
The OptimizeGoogle Firefox add-on will do it for you. Among many other useful features, it adds a "filter" link beneath each result, allowing you to filter that domain or URL (you specify the exact filter).
It's true that in aggregate authoritarian regimes have done well economically, for a period, in places such as Chile, Taiwan and South Korea (of course, we don't know how well democracy would have worked in those times and places). But they only did well in aggregate; some citizens did well and some very badly.
Exactly; some people in the country make a lot of money, but those workers did not, and some suffered much worse; in total, the economy grew. In Taiwan, tens of thousands were murdered in the 2-28 incident, and throughout authoritarian rule, 3-4,000 were executed and 30,000 were imprisoned and often tortured for political crimes. In Chile, Pinochet murdered 3,000 people, and arrested and tortured 30,000. South Koreans endured similar experiences. The workers, the murdered, the tortured, the imprisoned, and their families often did not see benefits. The economic prowess of authoritarian regimes is often represented by GDP growth, but that's an aggregate statistic of the total economic growth and it covers up great suffering.
No government is all roses -- I can't think of one that is -- that's not the standard by which they are measured. It's a good sign when politicians can be removed from office and even jailed. Politically, economically, and by almost any other measure, Taiwan and Japan are much better off than China.
(For the record, Taiwan's first democratically elected President, Lee Teng-hui, is not in jail; a successor, Chen Shui-bian was jailed after he left office.)
How many have you met, out of 1.2 billion, that you can speak for the Chinese people? Have you met those in prisons or those who can't get jobs because of their political beliefs? What about those who can't practice their religion? What about those who censor their beliefs so they can keep their jobs? What about those in Tibet? In Xinjiang? What about those protesting against the government all over China, because their rights are ignored and trampled by a political establishment which has no responsibility to the people (because they can't be voted out of office)? Why must the Communist Party jail democracy advocates and censor the Internet, if their people don't want it?
Your claims repeat the Communist Party line (and quote people who risk their jobs if they disagree), which itself is the same old canard despots worldwide have used: It's a Western cultural thing, not appropriate in our culture; our people don't want it. (And if they say they do, we put them in jail.) But the facts are overwhelming: Democracy and freedom are desires and values universal to humanity. The people of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and others, representing almost every other non-Western culture, have adopted it with great success. Only those who are forcibly repressed by their government are denied it. And all over the world, nearly 100% of the most prosperous, stable countries are democracies.
Every democracy started out as undemocratic and unfree (including the U.S. if you count the colonial era). To say the people of China lack the motivation or ability to seize it for themselves is patronizing and insulting. They have come so far from the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, when a totalitarian dictator's incompetence and obscene disregard killed tens of millions and reduced their country to shambles, to today's relatively stable government and rocketing prosperity. There is no reason to think they will not continue and eventually enjoy the freedom and prosperity that so many others have achieved.
No matter what the headhunter or someone else does, your integrity is attached to you as an individual. If you are dishonest, nobody thinks 'ABC contractor is dishonest', they think 'Captain Sarcastic is dishonest', and that follows you when you leave ABC. In fact, if they are being dishonest or even just reckless with the truth, I would avoid association with ABC; that also might follow you wherever you go.
You also should demonstrate good judgment by avoiding embarrassing ABC, but if pressed, just say 'I'm sorry, there must have been some miscommunication, my real experience is ...' or 'there must be some mistake, let me get you a corrected resume'. Don't speculate on ABC's motives, which you probably don't know anyway. (and don't need to know; intentionally or not, ABC is unreliable). Even silently allowing important mistatements to pass is deceitful.
Integrity is a necessary trait for anyone I work with. Others certainly don't mind or even admire someone who can deceive effectively; if someone like that hires you, you know what to expect from them.
I agree that racism is bad in any form, but I'm very concerned about the level of discussion about it. We've been manipulated by amoral, power-hungry leaders into indulging our anger and acting on our worst instincts. Outrage, hatred, and its consequences serve only the public figures who instigate it; the public suffers from division, social instability, political gridlock, and the often violent consequences. The individuals who, prodded into outrage, commit immoral acts, must along with their victims live the rest of their lives with the consequences; the leaders are unscathed. Their words -- the words of Bill O'Reilly or Al Sharpton -- are weapons, and you are their target.
It's a very old strategy, called Populism, used by leaders from the beginning of time because it works so well. Stoking ethnic tension is an obvious way to implement it. Here's the way I look at it: Humans naturally have a tribal instinct, controlled by our morality and societal pressure; all you have to do is encourage it, find justifications for it (victimhood is popular -- find problems and blow them up into catastrophes), and set the example that its socially acceptable, and those obstacles to our worst instincts melt away. Light the match, and the fire will spread. Everyone from Milosevic to the Rwandans Hutus, to yes, a certain German leader, have used it to great affect. The harm it caused can never be undone.
I can see how it benefited those leaders. I can see how it benefits people like O'Reilly and Al Sharpton -- If it wasn't for the outrage they stoke, who would they be? What attention/ratings would they get? But I can't see how it benefits our society. Is there anything admirable about a society torn by hatred and racial tension? Has that helped its citizens? Made it a better world for their children?
Did Lou Dobbs submit that? Please preserve /. from this nonsense; I thought this website was supposed to post "Stuff that matters". All this post offers is an outlet for outrage, self-righteousness, and ugly xenophobia -- natural human traits, but not healthy or helpful ones that we benefit from encouraging. How many people have those websites affected? Isn't there something more consequential going on, that we can put on the front page of /.?
I've used BetterPrivacy for a little while. I'm using the options below, and I've never had a problem with any websites that I could trace to it:
- Delete Flash cookies on Firefox exit
- Also delete settings.sol
- Also delete empty cookie folders
- Disable DOMStorage
- Disable Ping Tracking
When I first ran it, I was surprised to discover Flash cookies from websites I hadn't visited in years. Thanks Netticat!
You're criticizing an article for not using the terms you like? Who is being politically correct? Must we all think and talk like you?
Then you should have read the Fine Article. That's not what it says.
We re-watched the original miniseries recently; what a good, gripping story. At the time, I liked the show because it was more "Fi" than "Sci": Good characters, interesting plot, sophisticated issues (esp. the political issues). They took advantage of the flexibility of 'Sci' not to provide gee-whiz gizmos and superpowers that are no more meaningful than special effects, but to provide a unique setting that was not possible in real-world setting.
Re-watch the original mini-series yourself and you can't miss how far the show has come, but in a completely different (and in my mind, wrong) direction. The characters and acting have become extreme and overdramatc. The political issues hang around, but in often they are absurd (how about the politics of ditching all your technology? It was handled by one sentence: 'It's surprising there was no dissension' -- it sure is!). And the show is dominated by the Sci -- mysticism, cylon projections, the final 5, etc etc etc. Booooring. Anyone can make that stuff up as they go along; what does it mean?
And the conclusion was so poorly thought out that the writers are guilty of dereliction of duty. Returning to the decision to abandon all technology: Perhaps they should recall that our ancestors lived short, brutal lives, and they grew up with the skills to survive in that environment; our heroes have no idea how to hunt a buffalo with a spear, clean it, skin it, and preserve the meat for the winter. Just think of this little inconvenience: No salt, no pepper, no spices; no vitamins! When the first drought -- or the locusts, or neighboring tribe or a pack of baboons -- comes and they run out of food, and half of them die off, it won't seem like such a good idea. When people start dying from simple infections because there are no antibiotics, when women start dying in childbirth, when most children don't survive to adulthood, when the leading killer becomes starvation instead of obesity, they may remember the benefits of technology. Sure, we can close our eyes to all these problems, but couldn't the writers have made an effort to tell a story with some plausibility?
Like many movies and shows, it seems like the writers ran out of time or funding, and just whipped something together to fulfill their obligation to finish the story. Their audience should demand more.
Nobody said the MSM is perfect or even good, only that it's better than the alternative. Sort of like Democracy, which is terrible, but is still the best option.
However, the "MSM" covers a very large number of media sources, all over the world, in every town, and in every format (newspaper, magazine, TV, web, etc.). I've found many of those things you wish for, including in-depth policy analysis and well researched coverage that represents both sides. There is plenty of media that doesn't provide those things (I think because most of the public doesn't demand it), including Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann too. I ignore them and read the quality stuff. Here are a few great MSM resources you might like:
* ProPublica - Investigative reporting covering the U.S.
* Council on Foreign Relations - International issues, especially try their Backgrounders, which are very well done.
* The Economist - Economics and finance, as well as international news and analysis.
I support open source software, I contribute my time and money to many projects and have five FOSS applications open right now, but I think the Ubuntu story was pretty good; imperfect, but reasonable. I don't think Ubuntu is suitable for most end-users, due to the basic compatibility issues she described. I wish it were otherwise, but that doesn't change the news.
Of course random, unknown people are not trustworthy. While it's trendy to criticize the "MSM" and 'old' media, they do have one essential advantage over crowd-sourced information: MSM publications have a reputation to protect:
1) They are not anonymous. As has often been observed, people are willing to say things anonymously on the Internet that they would never say to anyone's face, or if anyone knew who was speaking.
2) They have an enormous investment in their reputation: Millions (or more) in business, hundreds of jobs, and a reputation that's been built up over decades or more.
3) They have a track record: You know (or can know) the history of their integrity.
Certainly that does not make MSM 100% trustworthy; they are not. But at least when I read David Pogue in the NY Times, for example, I know whom I'm dealing with and I can make a judgment about the chance of and degree to which he might be shilling something.
Many bloggers complain that the "MSM" (that is, professional journalists) filter the news, and they want to bypass that filter. But the reality is that blogs are often a second filter on top of the first one. They take the content generated by the professionals (sometimes an article, sometimes some words taken out of context), and the blogger frames it with their own perspective and context.
Why would anyone want some random person adding yet another filter to their news? In large part, I think it's because the bloggers are willing to offer a level of info-tainment that the professionals won't: Uncorroborated rumor, conspiracy theory, unfounded amateur analysis, and outraged or outrageous opinions.
(Of course, there are many good aspects to blogs (here I am reading /.) and there are lousy professionals.)
Per the actual research, the primary cause of death (above basecamp) is indeed physical trauma. The table is here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content-nw/full/337/dec11_1/a2654/TBL2
The actual article is here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec11_1/a2654
You can read the actual research for yourself in British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/dec11_1/a2654
Perhaps OeLeWaPpErKe was exaggerating to make a point, but there are many large exaggerations in the parent:
Many news organization reprint wire service articles, but: 1) There are many other wire services (Reuters and the AP being the largest, I think, and you can see a list at the preceeding link); 2) News organization also do their own original reporting; the wire services are usually a minority of their content and an organization like the New York Times uses almost exclusively original reporting. I doubt the BBC uses AP or AFP stories (though maybe they use some Reuters). Watch a press conference; where are all those journalists from? Just the AP and AFP?
I assume that's a typo, but the AP is American, if that matters. The AP is a non-profit cooperative owned by American daily newspapers. AFAIK, the idea is that it's not cost-effective or useful for every daily newspaper to send a reporter to, for example, the big football game this weekend. So they formed a cooperative and send one reporter.
The AFP is not, AFAIK, nearly as large in English-speaking markets as the AP and Reuters.
They cooperate with one another, hardly ever making double coverage, so in practice an article with AP under it might have come from AFP.
I don't know about that; I've seen plenty of overlapping coverage. AFP is, not suprisingly, much less focused on the English-speaking world than AP is, but they both cover all major stories. Here are AP and AFP headlines from Yahoo!:
http://news.yahoo.com/i/514
http://news.yahoo.com/i/1504
First, who cares. But that number is not nearly accurate. Much/most of the news you see is produced by journalists in the organization that publishes it; what do you think all those journalists on all the TV, print, and website news organizations do all day? Also, as I said above, AFP has much less presence than AP and Reuters in the English-speaking world and there are other newswires, so they produce much less than 1/3 of the content. I'd guess it's more like 3% in English publications, but that's just a guess and of course it depends on how you measure it (stories published on newswires? stories published by news organizations (e.g., CNN)? stories read?).
Maybe he can carry a suitcase too if he has a free hand.
The President's data -- the most confidential and valuable in the world -- stored on a nice compact, portable 6 pound device, which was designed for someone to walk away with. It's probably safe in the Oval Office, but what happens when he takes it someplace else? Is the wifi radio on? In ad hoc or infrastructure mode?
And if he's not taking it with him, why does he need a laptop (has he filled out the form providing a business-case justification for this purchase?). It doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. I'm sure we can find another way to provide him with the resources he needs, independent of his location, with a little better physical security.