"To repeat, that website is one tiny piece of the media. Every public website is is part of the media."
Definition of "Media"
Okay, if you want to get into a semantic war and attack me on semantics. Then have the balls to define your media.
a) a storage medium such as paper, CD, etc.
b) media, a common reference to the mainstream media. The large corporate media outlets. (To which I was referring)
c) expanded media, any outlet of news and information with the intent of reporting (blogs, journals, etc)
d) "all the world's a stage", any expression or information stored anywhere in any fashion. This seems to be your definition. However, it's not what most people define as the media. Nor was it what was being spoken about in this topic.
"Your opinion of the conservative email shot and your opinion of what you found at the Trinity Church site are not relevant to this discussion. The fact that you found the church's statements "very questionable" is subjective."
Absolutely are you tart. Because if you're going to use the broad spectrum of the media. Than I was the media. And my point was a valid media news event.:P
"Journalism" however was the intent to write news and present fact with little or minimal attempt at analysis or interpretation. The latter being the editorial page.
Sorry, if you're having issues with semantics. I'll clarify...
The "mainstream media" presently fails to be journalistic and tends toward being editorial in nature.
"Where did you do that research? Did data flow into your brain from space?"
I went directly to his Church's website. OMG
Yes, I may have found out about his church from another site or article, possibly even the media via Google. But when I posted about my concerns of Obama's church it was an analysis based strictly on the church's website and content.
Not every site out there constitutes the media. And even less so the mainstream media.
And I was endeavoring to "Debunk" one of those conservative email shots. And in doing so, I discovered something I considered to be very questionable regarding the church Obama claimed as his home of faith.
"The reality, of course, is that the ranter only knows about it because someone in the media told him about it."
Bullshit...
I discovered the racist overtones of Obama's church not via the media, but via my own personal research. Why? Because, conservatives were sending emails out that claimed Obama was a muslim. And liberal friends were stating he wasn't. I found out he claimed to be a Christian and took him at his word for it. I then searched to find what church he attended. From there I read thru the website of Obama's church and discovered a lot of rhetoric that would sound like KKK statements if you just changed one word, "black" for another word "white".
Was sadly disappointed, and it would be 6 months until the media would even touch upon this with the Reverend Wright scandal.
It was quite clear that the likes of CNN.com, MSNBC, etc were actively campaigning for Obama.
Nearly ever article for Obama was positive, if something mentioned a negative the end of the article would place a caveat on it. The media failed to address dozens of stories that would have tarnished Obama's pristine image. Meanwhile, McCain got poor treatment, bad photos, and if an article highlighted McCain positives it always had a caveat of negativity at the end.
The media excuse "Obama was new, exciting" is hogwash. Sarah Palin was equally new and just as exciting. But in the four days following the announcement of her, the mainstream media went on a rampage digging up any inkling of scandal. Even fabricating scandal. The same with Joe the Plumber.
Meanwhile, in a year and a half, I have discover a fair amount of disturbing information on Obama. Some of it via first person research. Material the media would usually take 6 months to release if they ever mentioned it at all.
Frankly, the mainstream media should all be forced to drop the moniker of being "journalists" and simply file with the IRS as a Political Action Committee. Because frankly, they had more in common with PAC groups than ANYTHING to do with investigative journalism and reporting.
Most non-working people I know have gotten their medical treatment for them and their children free.
The ones that are always hurting, are the "working poor" who bust their butt but always make just enough "too much" not to qualify for free school lunch, section-8, etc.
And the self-employed who are left on their own to gain coverage.
***
Haven't seen much from Obama that'd really do anything. I did like McCain's idea to let insurance companies compete across state lines. (ie: An insurance company in Arkansas could sell in to the much higher priced market in NYC.)
Simply showing the text is not acceptable. We want it to display the same in all browsers, and in the past few versions too.
It "all" depends on the task, the client, etc.
Not saying don't strive for standards when possible, and coding to be accessible, etc. But I am not sure there is any browser that currently exists and renders "perfectly" to ALL standards.
Hence, we compensate...
***
Note definition of standards vary, and we all may be talking about differing aspect of standards.;-)
For example, the year I graduated, I was valedictorian. Yet the culture was to not really promote such and almost not to allow speech.
Because that might infringe emotionally on those who achieve less academically. Yet, why the same does not go for sports?
We need to stop pandering underachievers, criminals, etc. And support those who work hard, achieve, and commend those who both are at the top OR overcome additional obstacles to achieve more than society expects of them.
Really, I think I heard about this 20 yrs ago. Since it's been happening over millions of years, and will take millions of years. I am not sure I accept either of the stated premises.
1. This is NOT the birth of a new ocean, unless the crack finally spread all the way to the ocean so as to unleash a rush of water that drowns the ensuing valley and literally creates an instant sea that was not there yesterday morning - than this is NOT a birth.
2. As it's happening over 20 million years and we're in the middle part of that. I do not think that qualifies as observing the birth. That'dbe like claiming to have observed grass growing. Sure it's longer over a few days and now I need to mow. But who has literally watched a single blade of grass grow and distinguished it's growth over a few hours. Not many of us...
"You same types were the ones saying there was no way the earth is round or revolved around the sun."
They weren't telling Columbus the world was round. But that it was 2x-3x bigger than he thought and that he'd never make it.
Oh...guess what...they were right. And if there hadn't happened to be another continent smack in the middle of the ocean. Columbus would have died and not even been remembered.
As the adult stem cells are more stable and less prone to grow tumors. It's like putting a 16 yr old first time driver (the researchers) in a Chevy or a NASCAR. And seeing which one they have more success driving around town.
Mainly, because there are too many want-a-be-stupid's out there who constantly decry the ban on stem cell research that doesn't exist.
The only ban is on Federal funding for fetal stem cell research. Which has mainly only succeeded in growing tumors.
Meanwhile, many in the field have said that they do not believe they need fetal tissue. Most successful stem cell treatments have all been derived from the more stable adult stem cells.
But hey, keep on being stupid, it let's you further your hate of Bush and keep chanting and ranting. Makes you feel better. Just know you're being stupid and mis-informed.
"if I'm also not mistaken, the entire neocon movement has been one designed to fleece people into thinking that they are liberals and are all for smaller government and conservation"
You're somewhat mistaken. Well not mistaken, but half right.
The other half is the socialist left saying we're going to help the needy. Instead, they take all the money they can and dish it out to their friends.
(See Charles Rangel for an example. See every other politician for another example.)
Essentially both parties are about fleecing the people.
Slashdot Mirror
Joe Bethancourt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrmBAXVjp1s
"To repeat, that website is one tiny piece of the media. Every public website is is part of the media."
Definition of "Media"
Okay, if you want to get into a semantic war and attack me on semantics. Then have the balls to define your media.
a) a storage medium such as paper, CD, etc.
b) media, a common reference to the mainstream media. The large corporate media outlets. (To which I was referring)
c) expanded media, any outlet of news and information with the intent of reporting (blogs, journals, etc)
d) "all the world's a stage", any expression or information stored anywhere in any fashion. This seems to be your definition. However, it's not what most people define as the media. Nor was it what was being spoken about in this topic.
"Your opinion of the conservative email shot and your opinion of what you found at the Trinity Church site are not relevant to this discussion. The fact that you found the church's statements "very questionable" is subjective."
Absolutely are you tart. Because if you're going to use the broad spectrum of the media. Than I was the media. And my point was a valid media news event. :P
"Journalism" however was the intent to write news and present fact with little or minimal attempt at analysis or interpretation. The latter being the editorial page.
Sorry, if you're having issues with semantics. I'll clarify...
The "mainstream media" presently fails to be journalistic and tends toward being editorial in nature.
"Where did you do that research? Did data flow into your brain from space?"
I went directly to his Church's website. OMG
Yes, I may have found out about his church from another site or article, possibly even the media via Google. But when I posted about my concerns of Obama's church it was an analysis based strictly on the church's website and content.
Not every site out there constitutes the media. And even less so the mainstream media.
And I was endeavoring to "Debunk" one of those conservative email shots. And in doing so, I discovered something I considered to be very questionable regarding the church Obama claimed as his home of faith.
That was a first hand discovery.
So don't be stupid...
"It also helped that he had an upbeat, positive, can-do campaign with a simple theme."
He had lots of negative campaign ads and tactics. But barely needed them because the media was his person female pitbull.
Obama and Biden had far more gaffes than McCain's campaign. But you only saw them on YouTube.
McCain's campaign was a lousy poorly managed campaign. Of course, he was facing a campaign that had raised more money than Bush & Kerry combined.
"The reality, of course, is that the ranter only knows about it because someone in the media told him about it."
Bullshit...
I discovered the racist overtones of Obama's church not via the media, but via my own personal research. Why? Because, conservatives were sending emails out that claimed Obama was a muslim. And liberal friends were stating he wasn't. I found out he claimed to be a Christian and took him at his word for it. I then searched to find what church he attended. From there I read thru the website of Obama's church and discovered a lot of rhetoric that would sound like KKK statements if you just changed one word, "black" for another word "white".
Was sadly disappointed, and it would be 6 months until the media would even touch upon this with the Reverend Wright scandal.
It was quite clear that the likes of CNN.com, MSNBC, etc were actively campaigning for Obama.
Nearly ever article for Obama was positive, if something mentioned a negative the end of the article would place a caveat on it. The media failed to address dozens of stories that would have tarnished Obama's pristine image. Meanwhile, McCain got poor treatment, bad photos, and if an article highlighted McCain positives it always had a caveat of negativity at the end.
The media excuse "Obama was new, exciting" is hogwash. Sarah Palin was equally new and just as exciting. But in the four days following the announcement of her, the mainstream media went on a rampage digging up any inkling of scandal. Even fabricating scandal. The same with Joe the Plumber.
Meanwhile, in a year and a half, I have discover a fair amount of disturbing information on Obama. Some of it via first person research. Material the media would usually take 6 months to release if they ever mentioned it at all.
Frankly, the mainstream media should all be forced to drop the moniker of being "journalists" and simply file with the IRS as a Political Action Committee. Because frankly, they had more in common with PAC groups than ANYTHING to do with investigative journalism and reporting.
Both sides will throw more money at the issue. And we'll get poorer results. Because it's NOT just a money issue.
*shrugs*
Most non-working people I know have gotten their medical treatment for them and their children free.
The ones that are always hurting, are the "working poor" who bust their butt but always make just enough "too much" not to qualify for free school lunch, section-8, etc.
And the self-employed who are left on their own to gain coverage.
***
Haven't seen much from Obama that'd really do anything. I did like McCain's idea to let insurance companies compete across state lines. (ie: An insurance company in Arkansas could sell in to the much higher priced market in NYC.)
I is "Client"...
Simply showing the text is not acceptable. We want it to display the same in all browsers, and in the past few versions too.
It "all" depends on the task, the client, etc.
Not saying don't strive for standards when possible, and coding to be accessible, etc. But I am not sure there is any browser that currently exists and renders "perfectly" to ALL standards.
Hence, we compensate...
***
Note definition of standards vary, and we all may be talking about differing aspect of standards. ;-)
Render well...
That works for some sights, where as certain clients want "render" exactly.
I do wonder whether you utilize any pre-written libraries that take into account variations in web browsers, DOM, etc.
If so, then you're not coding to standards, you're coding to handle differences and process your code to display to a standard.
Probably because this seldom is the case...
Hence, we actually add many conditions and evaluations to determine browser, version, etc.
***
That said, if it looks right and is standard - that's the best of both worlds.
I read the article and even did a quick google and did not gain any insight.
However, a Slashdotter replied to his question:
"glass is silicon dioxide. Silicon is pure Si."
And now I have learned something...woo-hoo!!!
When they don't work with the tools (various browsers).
Better to build a website that works, than one that meets standards but display poorly in the browsers of your users.
Ask yourself this simple question. If it does not look good in the browser, is your client going to accept "Well it's coded to standards!". Heck no...
What about the passenger in the side and back seats that were trying to carry on a conversation.
Heck, my mighty mouse doesn't even register if I do that. Zero right-click ability. Must be an older model.
Well there went my hope that they'd finally offer us two-buttons.
*sighs*
There is nothing I hate more than having to use a trackpad as a click-button. You try to move the cursor and open up half a dozen links accidentally.
I nearly sent back my Dell until we found drivers that let me turn that feature off. :(
Steve...YOUR A TWIT!!!
Did they drop the 17"? not update it? or just not mention it....
Apple site currently crawling and serving up server errors. So I can't see if it's listed as a new product.
Windows 3.x
Windows 95 (4)
Windows 98 (5)
Windows ME (6)
Windows XP (7)
Windows Vista (8)
Windows 7
However, if you look at 95/98/ME as one OS you get...
Windows 3.x
Windows 95/98/ME (4)
Windows XP (5)
Windows Vista (6)
Windows 7 (7)
And that's how many of us feel about 95/98/ME. It was one OS with some major service packs and very few feature ads or interface changes.
So I can see it being Windows 7. XP was a significant change from 9x, Vista was an awful change from XP.
For example, the year I graduated, I was valedictorian. Yet the culture was to not really promote such and almost not to allow speech.
Because that might infringe emotionally on those who achieve less academically. Yet, why the same does not go for sports?
We need to stop pandering underachievers, criminals, etc. And support those who work hard, achieve, and commend those who both are at the top OR overcome additional obstacles to achieve more than society expects of them.
Really, I think I heard about this 20 yrs ago. Since it's been happening over millions of years, and will take millions of years. I am not sure I accept either of the stated premises.
1. This is NOT the birth of a new ocean, unless the crack finally spread all the way to the ocean so as to unleash a rush of water that drowns the ensuing valley and literally creates an instant sea that was not there yesterday morning - than this is NOT a birth.
2. As it's happening over 20 million years and we're in the middle part of that. I do not think that qualifies as observing the birth. That'dbe like claiming to have observed grass growing. Sure it's longer over a few days and now I need to mow. But who has literally watched a single blade of grass grow and distinguished it's growth over a few hours. Not many of us...
"You same types were the ones saying there was no way the earth is round or revolved around the sun."
They weren't telling Columbus the world was round. But that it was 2x-3x bigger than he thought and that he'd never make it.
Oh...guess what...they were right. And if there hadn't happened to be another continent smack in the middle of the ocean. Columbus would have died and not even been remembered.
As the adult stem cells are more stable and less prone to grow tumors. It's like putting a 16 yr old first time driver (the researchers) in a Chevy or a NASCAR. And seeing which one they have more success driving around town.
Perhaps cause they don't have a problem in 1,000 people die in their research. They'll breed more...
Heck, they even poison their baby formula, petfood and fish. Yes, safe research and China...
Hilarious!!!
Mainly, because there are too many want-a-be-stupid's out there who constantly decry the ban on stem cell research that doesn't exist.
The only ban is on Federal funding for fetal stem cell research. Which has mainly only succeeded in growing tumors.
Meanwhile, many in the field have said that they do not believe they need fetal tissue. Most successful stem cell treatments have all been derived from the more stable adult stem cells.
But hey, keep on being stupid, it let's you further your hate of Bush and keep chanting and ranting. Makes you feel better. Just know you're being stupid and mis-informed.
"if I'm also not mistaken, the entire neocon movement has been one designed to fleece people into thinking that they are liberals and are all for smaller government and conservation"
You're somewhat mistaken. Well not mistaken, but half right.
The other half is the socialist left saying we're going to help the needy. Instead, they take all the money they can and dish it out to their friends.
(See Charles Rangel for an example. See every other politician for another example.)
Essentially both parties are about fleecing the people.