Sure, you can find differences in the two. One is about video games. The other is about political speech. One is about rape. The other is about gun violence.
On an abstract level, though, they're exactly the same. The question is, who gets the blame when someone does something criminal. Those who take negative actions or those who provide negative influences. When Columbine happened, it was all the fault of violent video games. Slashdot roared at the unfairness of the accusation and the threat to free speech and personal responsibility.
When a politically unsavory character like Sarah Palin can be painted with the exact same brush, I didn't see the same outcry here or on other typically progressive forums that I visit.
I'm not defending Sarah Palin. She's an idiot who doesn't belong in politics.
I'm always in the mood to defend consistency or at least raise the issue of hypocrisy vs consistency. I find this inconsistency curious and it's a little disappointing that it doesn't resonate with/.
This is pretty crappy reporting and it's a cheap shot to blame video games for the decisions made by criminals and generally insane people.
It reminds me, though, of all the cries of outrage I read against Sarah Palin after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Palin was outright blamed for causing the shooting by a lot of media outlets and blasted in an extraordinarily cheap shot by Keith Olbermann. I hope everyone who was sympathetic with that outrage can recognize his own hypocrisy if he isn't sympathetic with Fox's take in this article.
You paint a good picture of the problems the big producers will face, but the market is going sideways on them very quickly.
How many $40 disc games do I need to buy when my iPhone has plenty of $.99 games that keep me occupied during those odd hours when I used to look to one of my consoles? When people are buying less $60 new release games, they'll need to adapt to the new realities of the market.
I think that these new price models will continue to put downward pressure on disc games and increase the viability of less expensive games sold through the PS3 online store or the Mac App store.
It's taken a long time for technology to give consumers real choice, but now that it's built up momentum, I think it's here to stay. Console makers are going to need to adapt their licensing costs. Producers are going to need to distinguish themselves even more to justify the higher prices of the games that they sink big budgets into while they're simultaneously being forced to lower those prices in the face of inexpensive alternatives.
I think this is all just fantastic for consumers. And I offer a loud Nelson Muntz "Ha Ha" to Nintendo's predicament.
That's an ad hominem. If you read the links you posted, you'll see that their studies are cited by liberal and conservative organizations with several media outlets acknowledging their nonpartisanship.
Their biggest critic seems to be FAIR, and if you go to FAIR's wikipedia page, you'll see where they're criticized for their own liberal bias.
Look, I don't want to defend Fox too ardently. I'm not exactly a fan of their commentators - but when I see polemic like you posted, I feel a need to point it out. The truth is that Fox is the other side of a coin that has more than adequate representation in the rest of the media. If you dismiss Fox without dismissing MSNBC then you're a hypocrite.
As has been reported, Olbermann is off the air because he doesn't play well with others. I mean, did he alienate his "corporate overlords" when he was at ESPN also? I guess his journalistic integrity reporting sports news ran counter to the corporate agenda? From what I've read he's obnoxious with everyone, so it's no surprise that he got canned.
Being an atheist and generally socially liberal person, I have lots of problems with Fox news. I'm not so blinded by those problems that I don't see similar problems from other media outlets. Personally, I feel more informed by following a variety of news sources including Fox.
I'm a junkie for all the news channels. I just flip through them whenever they show commercials and stop when there's an actual program on. They all have noticeable biases and lie implicitly and explicitly. There was a study over the 2008 elections that showed Fox was the most balanced when talking about the candidates of all the networks during the news coverage (study wasn't over the opinion shows). Go figure.
It seems somewhat likely that there is more data on Fox's fabrications because it's a target. That's due to its popularity, its outlier nature when compared to the bulk of other television media, and the particular type of bias it exhibits. The type of people likely to create a Youtube channel to show us Fox fabrications are unlikely to have a problem with the slant of MSNBC reporting.
The iPhone has wifi, blue tooth, and the ability to use a PIN which would allow the app to cryptographically sign each transaction and they used a bar code?
WTF is so wrong with doing things the correct way in financial transactions? Why does every company have to screw it up so hard?
My one nit is that there's a ton more evidence for Evolution than climate predictions.
Climate science's track record is far less convincing than Evolution's. We know that the temperature has been rising. We're pretty sure that it's man made. We don't know how long that trend will continue. We don't know what the impact will be. Having worked on commercial level simulators, I know that it's extremely difficult to model the complexities of reality. It would be interesting if climate models could build up a track record of predicting trends in climate, but I don't think we're going to be there for some time.
Until then, people like Ehrlich (did you read that other link?) who make dire predictions that don't come true should be ignored. I'd like to see more interested parties put money and reputation on the line so we can have just a little more accountability.
Verizon is consistently rated tops in coverage, network quality, and customer service by Consumer Reports and other sources.
They're more expensive, but having used AT&T and Verizon, I notice a big difference. I'm anxious to get back to Verizon if their iPhone doesn't have too many compromises.
If I stand there and argue, on a trip, that we should drive down, say, highway 141 to get to Gainesville, and it's pointed out that highway 141 doesn't go to Gainesville, and so I argue that we should drive down 141 to get some Taco Bell, and it's pointed out that there's a Taco Bell on the actual route to Gainesville, and then I argue that Gainesville is a stupid place to go and we should go to Lawrenceville down 141 instead, and it's pointed out while that's technically possible, that's not a very good way to get to Lawrenceville...
With my friends, I then know that there's a tittie bar on 141 that they'd like to accidentally drop in on.
So, unless you have the right attitude, you shouldn't be encouraged to do the right thing?
Your scenario that he causes more spam doesn't seem realistic. Just from this/. article, a few enterprising individuals will probably join in the law suits. The ecosystem of spamming lawsuits will cause spammers much pain.
He's suing them to make money. That causes spammers pain. Spammers will only stop when it's too painful to continue. 1000 more just like Dan would cause a lot of pain to spammers.
If they make a good living out of it, good for them.
That's one of the beauties of a well-crafted law built around capitalism. You can make financial incentives for individual citizens to help the government enforce the laws that it doesn't have the manpower to.
have just announced the development of a prototype device that could lead to technology capable of
The prototype could lead to technology, which could lead to discoveries that could lead to clues that could lead to a one-armed man who could lead to some funding...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, you can find differences in the two. One is about video games. The other is about political speech. One is about rape. The other is about gun violence.
On an abstract level, though, they're exactly the same. The question is, who gets the blame when someone does something criminal. Those who take negative actions or those who provide negative influences. When Columbine happened, it was all the fault of violent video games. Slashdot roared at the unfairness of the accusation and the threat to free speech and personal responsibility.
When a politically unsavory character like Sarah Palin can be painted with the exact same brush, I didn't see the same outcry here or on other typically progressive forums that I visit.
I'm not defending Sarah Palin. She's an idiot who doesn't belong in politics.
I'm always in the mood to defend consistency or at least raise the issue of hypocrisy vs consistency. I find this inconsistency curious and it's a little disappointing that it doesn't resonate with /.
This is pretty crappy reporting and it's a cheap shot to blame video games for the decisions made by criminals and generally insane people.
It reminds me, though, of all the cries of outrage I read against Sarah Palin after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Palin was outright blamed for causing the shooting by a lot of media outlets and blasted in an extraordinarily cheap shot by Keith Olbermann. I hope everyone who was sympathetic with that outrage can recognize his own hypocrisy if he isn't sympathetic with Fox's take in this article.
You paint a good picture of the problems the big producers will face, but the market is going sideways on them very quickly.
How many $40 disc games do I need to buy when my iPhone has plenty of $.99 games that keep me occupied during those odd hours when I used to look to one of my consoles? When people are buying less $60 new release games, they'll need to adapt to the new realities of the market.
I think that these new price models will continue to put downward pressure on disc games and increase the viability of less expensive games sold through the PS3 online store or the Mac App store.
It's taken a long time for technology to give consumers real choice, but now that it's built up momentum, I think it's here to stay. Console makers are going to need to adapt their licensing costs. Producers are going to need to distinguish themselves even more to justify the higher prices of the games that they sink big budgets into while they're simultaneously being forced to lower those prices in the face of inexpensive alternatives.
I think this is all just fantastic for consumers. And I offer a loud Nelson Muntz "Ha Ha" to Nintendo's predicament.
That's an ad hominem. If you read the links you posted, you'll see that their studies are cited by liberal and conservative organizations with several media outlets acknowledging their nonpartisanship.
Their biggest critic seems to be FAIR, and if you go to FAIR's wikipedia page, you'll see where they're criticized for their own liberal bias.
Look, I don't want to defend Fox too ardently. I'm not exactly a fan of their commentators - but when I see polemic like you posted, I feel a need to point it out. The truth is that Fox is the other side of a coin that has more than adequate representation in the rest of the media. If you dismiss Fox without dismissing MSNBC then you're a hypocrite.
Like I said, go figure.
As has been reported, Olbermann is off the air because he doesn't play well with others. I mean, did he alienate his "corporate overlords" when he was at ESPN also? I guess his journalistic integrity reporting sports news ran counter to the corporate agenda? From what I've read he's obnoxious with everyone, so it's no surprise that he got canned.
Being an atheist and generally socially liberal person, I have lots of problems with Fox news. I'm not so blinded by those problems that I don't see similar problems from other media outlets. Personally, I feel more informed by following a variety of news sources including Fox.
I'm a junkie for all the news channels. I just flip through them whenever they show commercials and stop when there's an actual program on. They all have noticeable biases and lie implicitly and explicitly. There was a study over the 2008 elections that showed Fox was the most balanced when talking about the candidates of all the networks during the news coverage (study wasn't over the opinion shows). Go figure.
It seems somewhat likely that there is more data on Fox's fabrications because it's a target. That's due to its popularity, its outlier nature when compared to the bulk of other television media, and the particular type of bias it exhibits. The type of people likely to create a Youtube channel to show us Fox fabrications are unlikely to have a problem with the slant of MSNBC reporting.
Yeah, as much as divorcing parents tell the kids, "it's not your fault." Sometimes the little shits are exactly the cause of marital misery. :)
I'll just leave this right here,
I want a solution to carbon emissions too, but Cap and Trade isn't it in any of its current incarnations.
The iPhone has wifi, blue tooth, and the ability to use a PIN which would allow the app to cryptographically sign each transaction and they used a bar code?
WTF is so wrong with doing things the correct way in financial transactions? Why does every company have to screw it up so hard?
I'm looking at you, Blue from American Express...
I refuse to even click on a link to an article with that much derp in it.
The funny thing is that the non-Slashdot crowd will think this is a great idea.
My one nit is that there's a ton more evidence for Evolution than climate predictions.
Climate science's track record is far less convincing than Evolution's. We know that the temperature has been rising. We're pretty sure that it's man made. We don't know how long that trend will continue. We don't know what the impact will be. Having worked on commercial level simulators, I know that it's extremely difficult to model the complexities of reality. It would be interesting if climate models could build up a track record of predicting trends in climate, but I don't think we're going to be there for some time.
Until then, people like Ehrlich (did you read that other link?) who make dire predictions that don't come true should be ignored. I'd like to see more interested parties put money and reputation on the line so we can have just a little more accountability.
Verizon is consistently rated tops in coverage, network quality, and customer service by Consumer Reports and other sources.
They're more expensive, but having used AT&T and Verizon, I notice a big difference. I'm anxious to get back to Verizon if their iPhone doesn't have too many compromises.
You ever read the Huffington Post or Moveon after some Republican/Conservative has died or is injured/attacked? Absolutely reprehensible.
Don't be deluded into thinking one group of extremists in a political party is more civilized than another.
My data shows that diaper sales increased as autism has.
Diapers are clearly causing autism.
If I stand there and argue, on a trip, that we should drive down, say, highway 141 to get to Gainesville, and it's pointed out that highway 141 doesn't go to Gainesville, and so I argue that we should drive down 141 to get some Taco Bell, and it's pointed out that there's a Taco Bell on the actual route to Gainesville, and then I argue that Gainesville is a stupid place to go and we should go to Lawrenceville down 141 instead, and it's pointed out while that's technically possible, that's not a very good way to get to Lawrenceville...
With my friends, I then know that there's a tittie bar on 141 that they'd like to accidentally drop in on.
Because DNA that didn't care to survive hasn't. It's a feedback loop of extra-ordinary power.
Meh... call me when it's made from legos.
Really? I'd think that the pendulum has a really long way to swing before anti-spam legal trolls reach the destructive level of spammers.
Unsolicited email with an opt-out is still spam. Not spamming is the only ethical behavior that businesses can pursue.
Interesting web site. Fascinating reading. Any updates on things since 2008?
So, unless you have the right attitude, you shouldn't be encouraged to do the right thing?
Your scenario that he causes more spam doesn't seem realistic. Just from this /. article, a few enterprising individuals will probably join in the law suits. The ecosystem of spamming lawsuits will cause spammers much pain.
He's suing them to make money. That causes spammers pain. Spammers will only stop when it's too painful to continue. 1000 more just like Dan would cause a lot of pain to spammers.
If they make a good living out of it, good for them.
That's one of the beauties of a well-crafted law built around capitalism. You can make financial incentives for individual citizens to help the government enforce the laws that it doesn't have the manpower to.
have just announced the development of a prototype device that could lead to technology capable of
The prototype could lead to technology, which could lead to discoveries that could lead to clues that could lead to a one-armed man who could lead to some funding...
What problem were we trying solve again?
I hate over-hyped article titles and summaries.
And if the check was forged from an innocent's account?
You mean Dreamscape 2010?