He benefits the world more in spending his time on his endowments than on wasting that time micromanaging his investments. Even if he had the time - or wasted the money to hire the legal help to assist him - to weed out the 'bad' companies from his portfolio there is no way to make everyone happy.
The idea isn't to micromanage the investments, or even to "make everyone happy". The idea is to help many people on this planet live better and more productive lives. The problem is that the many of the companies he is ivesting in are helping the exacerbate the problems he's trying to solve.
It's kinda like..oh...I don't know...arming a middle eastern dictatorship and then spending even more money cleaning up after it.
I have no doubt that many people will buy HD-DVD to view porn. There's a market for higher quality and physical media.
While I agree, I think the reason many will shun HD-DVD porn is pretty straighforward. Notice how you can see facial blemishes, pockmarks, etc, much better in HD?
Now think about what a whore's ass really looks like...
I'm a happy owner of a nano, so I fully apprecaite Apple's ability to deliver a cool thing that does one task very well.
I'm going to retain my skepticism about this one until we get some more hands on experience.
One other thing you note, and could cause big problems for the iPhone is all that extra software that exists for the treo line. It's extensive. If apple doesn't allow that second teir market for software, it will be at a disadvantage. I agree that setting up a smart phone to do all that smart stuff can be a pain..but...20 hours? That seems a bit much considering that phone/texting/camera/email work out of the box and ptunes takes two clicks and sync to install. yes, there's a lot more to play with beyond that, but the basic funtionality is included and works without futzing.
For the normal person you see walking the street with white earbuds hanging out of their ears, the Treo is completely unusable.
I dunno about that. I know lots of "normal" people that have them and use them just fine. I also know even more people that don't use all, or even a good portion, of the features on their regular phone. Making all this stuff work and be simple is a tall order. Apple can probably do it...but I think it's going to take quite a bit longer than some think to iron out the kinks. I would expect a major stumble or two along the way...and I think Jobs is being *mighty* ambitious to think they'll sell 10,000,000 of 'em by 2008.
not to put too fine a point on it, but my response was that the Treo does have or does not need most of these things.
They are not absent (touchscreen) or not needed (landscape changes). The original poster was implying that this stuff is ALL NEW with the iPhone. It is not.
I fully, and completely, concede the the iPhone appears to have improved on most areas, but until I see one in my hand, and see all this stuff working as advertised, I shall retain my skepticism.
Also, I would disagree about the lack of a keyboard on a smartphone is a minor point. Again, it's hard to compare against something not on the market, but I'm curious how one can dial an iPhone or fast forward/pause/etc music on one while it stays in one's pocket or do so with one hand. This is trivial to do with a physical interface.
I'm also not sure why one *needs* to multi-task on a phone. We're already talking about the general market here, so that's a curious one. And again, without seeing *how well it works*, it's difficult to compare.
Also, I use blazer pretty extensively. It does a wonderful job of rendering most news sites (what I use it for) and I've posted things here and other places before using it. It's not ideal, but it works. Also, it strips the crap that generally isn't needed when all you are after in the text on a given page. What it *doesn't* require is a specially written page, which is what I consider to be the 'baby browser' stuff that most phones use.
As it stands, we are comparing a real, physical phone I've been using for years, versus a marketing presentation emanating from a reality distortion field.
hey, I'm no hater. I think the iphone looks amazing, and am very excited to try to it out. If it works as advertised, I'll probably snag one...but...again...hype and reality aren't even cousins, in my experience.
To conclude, I'm glad to see some innovation from Apple. But they are innovating on ideas and products that have existed for at least two Moore-ian generations, not inventing a whole new concept.
It has a virtual keyboard so you don't have to press 7 four times to get an S?
It has a full keyboard you can type on in your pocket. Have you even seen one? That's the dumbest comment of all these.
It syncs with iTunes?
Who wants that? It syncs like a hard-drive. 4gb SD card slides into computer. mp3's are copied, and then played.
How many people are going to post ignorant "My phone does all this" claims without thinking it through?
How many people are going to realize many phones have been doing the majority of this stuff for years....and the iPhone won't be about for a number of months?
I'm not saying the iPhone isn't a good accessory that will get your boyfriend all hot and bothered, but to say that the featureset is unique is beyond ignorant.
As are the people who rated the previous comment as "informative".
I think Apple isn't all that interested in 'taking over' the high-end cellphone market as much as they're interested in defining a new category of communications device that's not thought of as a cellphone.
I agree with that, but think they made a pretty big mistake while doing so.
Most consumers don't care about DRM, and I certainly don't think that companies are going to see this failure (if the Zune does fail in the end) of DRM.
This is not true. The DRM features are widley noted by every tech reviewer on the planet. Consumers get much of their information from said reviewers. Consumers are largely aware of DRM and know it is not what they want.
Tech is a sketchy enough purchase for most people. Add in the added threat that things won't work because of EXTRA technology/software added on top...and you'll quickly find demand for the EXTRA crap diminishing.
I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but most of the traditional media has caught on to the DRM games, and most tech reporters have been burned by the DRM bug.
OTOH, maybe coming back in time would bring a Flu strain that would wipe us all out?
this happened already on this continent. The Europeans got in great sailing vessels, went across the ocean, and traveled back in time to find a society 1,000 years older than their own...and promptly destroyed it with some nasty biological weapons.
I could have put in the links, but I was/am at work and trying to minimuze/. time.
However, since there is little or no data to show that they're growing, you seem to be taking that to be evidence that they are shrinking, which is just as bad.
You may want to re-read...what I was taking as evidence of shrinking...was evidence of shrinking. The shrinking evidence that has been collected is the up close and personal kind. The idea that galciers are growing, which is the contention made in the pdf support for the original article, is not based on personal scientific observation, as far as I could tell.
Firstly, your statements are not footnoted either.
Copy, paste, google.
I realize that this does not bring your entire point crashing to the ground, but you had better be a little more careful before you come across sounding so certain that you are absolutely right.
Very true. But then again, this is/. and I'm doing free labor.:-)
Note also how he mentions that "very nearly all of the world's 160,000+ glaciers... have never been visited by humankind or measured in detail."....so how does he know they are growing?
Of the ones that have been studied, in detail, by scientists, his claim is flat out false.
This is not to say there aren't some glaciers growing, there are, but much of that is attributle to a changing climate. Overall, the trend is hotter and meltier.
Venus was, obviously, a bit of hyperbole. Our species would be long gone before such a change could ever be observer.
Second problem with your statement. The Earth has been warmer in the past than it is now. By your reasoning, it should never have cooled off to form the last iceage.
That's not the reasoning. What is new, and unprecedented, is the rate of change in global temperature. A simple cliche-based metaphor: What goes up must come down...unless you make it into orbit.
Boston, MA (May 30, 2001) -- Mountain glaciers around the world are receding, said geophysicists today at the annual spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). In a finding he calls "dramatic," Dr. Rick Wessels from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) presented research that compared new satellite data to historical records and photographs of glaciers on mountains worldwide, showing that the majority of glaciers studied have decreased in size.
2
British scientists in the Antarctic say they now have proof of the dramatic effects of climate change.
The British Antarctic Survey Group has published research in the Journal of Science, which shows that in the past half-century almost 90 per cent of the glaciers in the Antarctic have retreated.
They say it is no coincidence that during that time there has been a two degree rise in the region's temperature.
The British Antarctic Survey Team has studied more than 2,000 aerial photographs and more than 100 satellite images taken over the past 50 years.
Researchers looked at 244 glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula.
Their research shows that since the 1950s, 87 per cent of the glaciers have shrunk.
3
Glaciers in the Bolivian Andes are shrinking at an alarming rate, say scientists.
The bare rock around the glacier works as an oven, speeding the melting
Data collected from tropical ice fields near the world's highest capital, La Paz, show mass loss in the 1990s at rates 10 times greater than previous decades.
If rising temperatures and low precipitation continue, many smaller glaciers will vanish in a decade, the researchers believe.
You can find those yourself, it's not difficult.
I don't know where this guy got his data. His "the glaciers are growing" statement was not foot-noted.
The difference is the source. We are the source of the extra in this case. Our input plus the natural cycle has put us in a precarious place...and it is only precarious because of the rate of change. Yes, obviously, climates change. It's when they change fast thatthere is a the problem....and the potential here is that we can go all the way out of whack.
Like the difference between a car crash and a car stop, it's all about acceleration. Right now we are going too fast...and there's a wall out there somewhere...we're just not sure where.
What if the increased temperature is driving more CO2 [in] the atmosphere
This actually happens, as the increase in temperature causing ground soil to give up more C02. This is why it is an accelerating trend. That trend ends at Venus.
"When men have ceased to believe in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing. They will believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton.
There ya go. From his preface. People believe in climate change because they have lost their faith.
If that's not his argument...why is this one of the first things he says?
Also, he cites the concept that all climate scientists are saying there's a problem so they'll keep their jobs...before he gets to any actual numbers.
Then he says this...
The snows of Kilimanjaro have been receding. So have the glaciers in Glacier National Park, Washington State, and many other (though not all) mountain glaciers in temperate or equatorial latitudes. However, very nearly all of the world's 160,000+ glaciers (this surprisingly large figure is from the UN's 2001 report) have never been visited by humankind or measured in detail. They are on the high, central plateaux Antarctica and Greenland. The great majority are not melting. They are growing.
This is not true.
Then he says.
I conclude that the rise in temperatures since 1900 has been far from uniform globally. Overall, temperatures may have risen at only three-quarters of the rate assumed by the UN in its 2001 report. As will be seen later, even a small discrepancy between the UN's assumed 0.6C and the true 20th-century increase in temperature has a significant effect on the calibration of climate-projecting models, and hence on the magnitude of their projections of future climate.
Which is a classic mistake of mistaking weather for climate..and local for global.
Then he says it's not greenhouse gases...but the sun that is getting hotter.
I conclude that the Sun is very likely to have contributed rather more to the past century's warm period than the UN has assumed, and that assumptions about the contribution of greenhouse gases to warming should be revised downward accordingly.
So, uh, it's not even that it's "global warming" that has been debunked...it's that the U.N. is wrong about what is causing it.
(yes, the headline is wrong).
Then he goes into the calculations...none of which is data he personally gathered (because if he did, that would be he is a climate scientist...which would mean he couldn't be trusted...as he would then be being paid to study the climate).
the word that means what you are trying to say is "Theocracy".
Teh connotation for "fascism" is all about fear.
Hence, anybody who uses the term is actually an 'Islamofearist'. Defined as someone who uses fear of an unknown culture dominated by brown people to achieve political goals.
You miss the corporate element of fascism, which is completely and utterly removed from the Islmaist movements, which are populist (see: Zawahiri's call for democracy).
And a lot of them have pan-Arab/pan-Muslim ideas- sort of like Hitler's conception of Volksdeutsche united in a Grossdeutschland, a lot of the so-called Islamo-fascists would like to see the Muslim world brought under a single Islamic Caliphate.
And the war is being expanded and championed on our side by a group that wants to set up a global "Pax Americana", where American military might rules the planet for 100 years by controlling access to the black gold modern economies are so enamored with.
Both of these "sides" are actually on the same side. And both have ridiculous, impossible goals.
Hence the term, "Islamofearists", which applies to the nutjob militants on both sides of this "War for Civilization".
Buying into the terms, is buying into the whole argument.
The argument, and the "sides", should instead be defined by those that wish to use violent means to achieve political goals (Neocons and Al Qeada, etc), and those that feel using such means invalidates ones ends (The Rest of the World).
We should be treating Al Qeada like the KKK, not the Nazis. The similarities are extensive. Exposing their hatred and violence as foolish and counter-productive. Instead, we, led by the Neocons, have decided that the "right" strategy is to be more full of hatred and violence than they are.
BTW, my dichotomy also allows one to make more friends on the "other side" (i.e. the Middle East), while the "Islamofascist" argument, by its very linguistic nature, casts aspersion and insinuates the guilt of 20% of the population of the planet (i.e. all followers of Islam).
The only people that could "win" by using that term are those calling for more war and more destruction, i.e. Neocons and Islamist Radicals.
Ironically, John Hurt plays Supreme Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta.
That's not ironic, that's a cinematic Easter Egg for those paying attention.
And yes, one can have quite a career after giving in completely to the system and loving Big Brother. It certainly gets you a job at the National Review.
From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?
It came from bastions of hate and ridiculousness like "Free Republic" and "Little Green Footballs".
It is the lingo of the "glass parking lot" crowd. You should be very afriad when real people, and not internet racists, start using the term.
It's a ridiculous term on the face of it (fascist=uber nationalist), and is better expressed, from a literal linguistic point of reference, as "Islamofearism".
Could you share what you like to read? Something in the web? I like to read american media.
So do I, and I do so for a good long while each day.
This also comes from a self-confessed newshound who "earned" a $100,000 degree in mass communication (+minor in comp. sci. = "B.A. of teh Intarwebs", back before it was one), I can recommend the CSM and BBC as probably some of the best, general, reporting. Asia Times does a good job as well. If you like variety, Fark, yes, Fark, does a damn good job of covering the breadth of opinion/flame wars.
That's another thing to make sure you know. Much of what pases for "news" nowadays is Editorial Opinion, that is, the perspective of one, yes, 1 of the 6-odd billion people on the planet. "News" on the other hand, is supposed to be a less...subjective "opinion". News is the opinion of an organization dedicdated to producing such. Yes, it's a circular definition, but it works.
The NYTimes does a good job, and the WSJ is the gold-standard. However, remember that the WSJ's Editorial Page, is just that. Know the difference, keep it in mind when reading. Lots of local newsfold do a good job. The Reuters feed is good (the problem was fixed quickly) and AP/the newswires get turned into a lot of stories. When you read the same story in a few different places, you see the different depth that some places go into. That is the real difference, i.e. how far someone goes into the story, how many things they relate to it, and how dense it can be made with "FACT". Capitalized, bolded and quoted for EMPHASIS! Facts are the stuff of news, opinion is the stuff of pundits.
Know the difference. If something from a 'news' source isn't labeled one or the other, IT'S CRAP! (it can also be crap for not getting the facts right)
This story is so very damaging to Reuters. Critics will trot it out (and ignore their own b.s.) endlessly. It might become a cliche.
Such is the state of things in this day and age.
After that I'd suggest wading into the blogs. There's a reason that's a mainstream buzzword, some of the "crap" out there is awesome. If 90% of everthing is crap, 8,000 worthwhile blogs came out in the last hour.
This is a prediction from someone who also is a dissertation away from a doctorate (honorary) in Philosophy as well, so take note. One day blogs and news will mean the same thing. Think about it (and yes,/. is a 'blog').
I'd predict in 20 years, you won't ask what's going on in world news..you'll ask what's on the blogs today.
Basically, there's more than enough to shake a stick at, but if you are limited in time...Google News is the best.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kinda like..oh...I don't know...arming a middle eastern dictatorship and then spending even more money cleaning up after it.
I have no doubt that many people will buy HD-DVD to view porn. There's a market for higher quality and physical media.
While I agree, I think the reason many will shun HD-DVD porn is pretty straighforward. Notice how you can see facial blemishes, pockmarks, etc, much better in HD?
Now think about what a whore's ass really looks like...
When you stop throwing up, you'll get it.
I'm a happy owner of a nano, so I fully apprecaite Apple's ability to deliver a cool thing that does one task very well.
I'm going to retain my skepticism about this one until we get some more hands on experience.
One other thing you note, and could cause big problems for the iPhone is all that extra software that exists for the treo line. It's extensive. If apple doesn't allow that second teir market for software, it will be at a disadvantage. I agree that setting up a smart phone to do all that smart stuff can be a pain..but...20 hours? That seems a bit much considering that phone/texting/camera/email work out of the box and ptunes takes two clicks and sync to install. yes, there's a lot more to play with beyond that, but the basic funtionality is included and works without futzing.
For the normal person you see walking the street with white earbuds hanging out of their ears, the Treo is completely unusable.
I dunno about that. I know lots of "normal" people that have them and use them just fine. I also know even more people that don't use all, or even a good portion, of the features on their regular phone. Making all this stuff work and be simple is a tall order. Apple can probably do it...but I think it's going to take quite a bit longer than some think to iron out the kinks. I would expect a major stumble or two along the way...and I think Jobs is being *mighty* ambitious to think they'll sell 10,000,000 of 'em by 2008.
not to put too fine a point on it, but my response was that the Treo does have or does not need most of these things.
They are not absent (touchscreen) or not needed (landscape changes). The original poster was implying that this stuff is ALL NEW with the iPhone. It is not.
I fully, and completely, concede the the iPhone appears to have improved on most areas, but until I see one in my hand, and see all this stuff working as advertised, I shall retain my skepticism.
Also, I would disagree about the lack of a keyboard on a smartphone is a minor point. Again, it's hard to compare against something not on the market, but I'm curious how one can dial an iPhone or fast forward/pause/etc music on one while it stays in one's pocket or do so with one hand. This is trivial to do with a physical interface.
I'm also not sure why one *needs* to multi-task on a phone. We're already talking about the general market here, so that's a curious one. And again, without seeing *how well it works*, it's difficult to compare.
Also, I use blazer pretty extensively. It does a wonderful job of rendering most news sites (what I use it for) and I've posted things here and other places before using it. It's not ideal, but it works. Also, it strips the crap that generally isn't needed when all you are after in the text on a given page. What it *doesn't* require is a specially written page, which is what I consider to be the 'baby browser' stuff that most phones use.
As it stands, we are comparing a real, physical phone I've been using for years, versus a marketing presentation emanating from a reality distortion field.
hey, I'm no hater. I think the iphone looks amazing, and am very excited to try to it out. If it works as advertised, I'll probably snag one...but...again...hype and reality aren't even cousins, in my experience.
To conclude, I'm glad to see some innovation from Apple. But they are innovating on ideas and products that have existed for at least two Moore-ian generations, not inventing a whole new concept.
Umm, what?!
Your Treo has accelerometers and a proximity sensor?
Not as powerful a one, but there's a reason it shuts down when dropped (and not broken, it just knows when to save itself from corruption)
It has a Dock Connector?
Yes. It's called a USB cable.
It has a full web browser (not some shrunken down "baby browser")?
Correct.
It has a touchscreen interface?
Yes, and has for years.
It has a virtual keyboard so you don't have to press 7 four times to get an S?
It has a full keyboard you can type on in your pocket. Have you even seen one? That's the dumbest comment of all these.
It syncs with iTunes?
Who wants that? It syncs like a hard-drive. 4gb SD card slides into computer. mp3's are copied, and then played.
How many people are going to post ignorant "My phone does all this" claims without thinking it through?
How many people are going to realize many phones have been doing the majority of this stuff for years....and the iPhone won't be about for a number of months?
No, your phone does NOT do all this.
It does the vast majority of it....and well...and has since Oct. '03.
I'm not saying the iPhone isn't a good accessory that will get your boyfriend all hot and bothered, but to say that the featureset is unique is beyond ignorant.
As are the people who rated the previous comment as "informative".
I think Apple isn't all that interested in 'taking over' the high-end cellphone market as much as they're interested in defining a new category of communications device that's not thought of as a cellphone.
I agree with that, but think they made a pretty big mistake while doing so.
That mistake being...calling it the iPhone. It's already led to a lawsuit.
The name is corny and overplayed. "iPod" worked well because it was a new formulation. An undefined term "pod" that was given life.
After a few minutes of reflection, I think "iComm" would have been better, or "iPad", even.
Most consumers don't care about DRM, and I certainly don't think that companies are going to see this failure (if the Zune does fail in the end) of DRM.
This is not true. The DRM features are widley noted by every tech reviewer on the planet. Consumers get much of their information from said reviewers. Consumers are largely aware of DRM and know it is not what they want.
Tech is a sketchy enough purchase for most people. Add in the added threat that things won't work because of EXTRA technology/software added on top...and you'll quickly find demand for the EXTRA crap diminishing.
I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but most of the traditional media has caught on to the DRM games, and most tech reporters have been burned by the DRM bug.
OTOH, maybe coming back in time would bring a Flu strain that would wipe us all out?
this happened already on this continent. The Europeans got in great sailing vessels, went across the ocean, and traveled back in time to find a society 1,000 years older than their own...and promptly destroyed it with some nasty biological weapons.
It could have been...it could be...it wasn't...it isn't.
4. Flash
Without flash, there would be no Youtube. Without youtube, the internets would be quite a bit more boring.
I could have put in the links, but I was/am at work and trying to minimuze /. time.
However, since there is little or no data to show that they're growing, you seem to be taking that to be evidence that they are shrinking, which is just as bad.
You may want to re-read...what I was taking as evidence of shrinking...was evidence of shrinking. The shrinking evidence that has been collected is the up close and personal kind. The idea that galciers are growing, which is the contention made in the pdf support for the original article, is not based on personal scientific observation, as far as I could tell.
peace.
If by "escape velocity" you mean "extinction", you are right, we could...
Firstly, your statements are not footnoted either.
/. and I'm doing free labor. :-)
... have never been visited by humankind or measured in detail."....so how does he know they are growing?
Copy, paste, google.
I realize that this does not bring your entire point crashing to the ground, but you had better be a little more careful before you come across sounding so certain that you are absolutely right.
Very true. But then again, this is
Note also how he mentions that "very nearly all of the world's 160,000+ glaciers
Of the ones that have been studied, in detail, by scientists, his claim is flat out false.
This is not to say there aren't some glaciers growing, there are, but much of that is attributle to a changing climate. Overall, the trend is hotter and meltier.
Venus was, obviously, a bit of hyperbole. Our species would be long gone before such a change could ever be observer.
Second problem with your statement. The Earth has been warmer in the past than it is now. By your reasoning, it should never have cooled off to form the last iceage.
That's not the reasoning. What is new, and unprecedented, is the rate of change in global temperature. A simple cliche-based metaphor: What goes up must come down...unless you make it into orbit.
I don't know where this guy got his data. His "the glaciers are growing" statement was not foot-noted.
The difference is the source. We are the source of the extra in this case. Our input plus the natural cycle has put us in a precarious place...and it is only precarious because of the rate of change. Yes, obviously, climates change. It's when they change fast thatthere is a the problem....and the potential here is that we can go all the way out of whack.
Like the difference between a car crash and a car stop, it's all about acceleration. Right now we are going too fast...and there's a wall out there somewhere...we're just not sure where.
actually...
What if the increased temperature is driving more CO2 [in] the atmosphere
This actually happens, as the increase in temperature causing ground soil to give up more C02. This is why it is an accelerating trend. That trend ends at Venus.
in anything." - G.K. Chesterton.
There ya go. From his preface. People believe in climate change because they have lost their faith.
If that's not his argument...why is this one of the first things he says?
Also, he cites the concept that all climate scientists are saying there's a problem so they'll keep their jobs...before he gets to any actual numbers.
Then he says this...This is not true.
Then he says.Which is a classic mistake of mistaking weather for climate..and local for global.
Then he says it's not greenhouse gases...but the sun that is getting hotter.So, uh, it's not even that it's "global warming" that has been debunked...it's that the U.N. is wrong about what is causing it.
(yes, the headline is wrong).
Then he goes into the calculations...none of which is data he personally gathered (because if he did, that would be he is a climate scientist...which would mean he couldn't be trusted...as he would then be being paid to study the climate).
So...yea..that's why it's wrong.
Go buy a soul.
Maybe then you'll appeciate life a bit more.
the word that means what you are trying to say is "Theocracy".
Teh connotation for "fascism" is all about fear.
Hence, anybody who uses the term is actually an 'Islamofearist'. Defined as someone who uses fear of an unknown culture dominated by brown people to achieve political goals.
You miss the corporate element of fascism, which is completely and utterly removed from the Islmaist movements, which are populist (see: Zawahiri's call for democracy).
And a lot of them have pan-Arab/pan-Muslim ideas- sort of like Hitler's conception of Volksdeutsche united in a Grossdeutschland, a lot of the so-called Islamo-fascists would like to see the Muslim world brought under a single Islamic Caliphate.
And the war is being expanded and championed on our side by a group that wants to set up a global "Pax Americana", where American military might rules the planet for 100 years by controlling access to the black gold modern economies are so enamored with.
Both of these "sides" are actually on the same side. And both have ridiculous, impossible goals.
Hence the term, "Islamofearists", which applies to the nutjob militants on both sides of this "War for Civilization".
Buying into the terms, is buying into the whole argument.
The argument, and the "sides", should instead be defined by those that wish to use violent means to achieve political goals (Neocons and Al Qeada, etc), and those that feel using such means invalidates ones ends (The Rest of the World).
We should be treating Al Qeada like the KKK, not the Nazis. The similarities are extensive. Exposing their hatred and violence as foolish and counter-productive. Instead, we, led by the Neocons, have decided that the "right" strategy is to be more full of hatred and violence than they are.
BTW, my dichotomy also allows one to make more friends on the "other side" (i.e. the Middle East), while the "Islamofascist" argument, by its very linguistic nature, casts aspersion and insinuates the guilt of 20% of the population of the planet (i.e. all followers of Islam).
The only people that could "win" by using that term are those calling for more war and more destruction, i.e. Neocons and Islamist Radicals.
Ironically, John Hurt plays Supreme Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta.
That's not ironic, that's a cinematic Easter Egg for those paying attention.
And yes, one can have quite a career after giving in completely to the system and loving Big Brother. It certainly gets you a job at the National Review.
From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?
It came from bastions of hate and ridiculousness like "Free Republic" and "Little Green Footballs".
It is the lingo of the "glass parking lot" crowd. You should be very afriad when real people, and not internet racists, start using the term.
It's a ridiculous term on the face of it (fascist=uber nationalist), and is better expressed, from a literal linguistic point of reference, as "Islamofearism".
why not, there's like a Brazilian you can come up with on a moment's notice .
Could you share what you like to read? Something in the web? I like to read american media.
/. is a 'blog').
So do I, and I do so for a good long while each day.
This also comes from a self-confessed newshound who "earned" a $100,000 degree in mass communication (+minor in comp. sci. = "B.A. of teh Intarwebs", back before it was one), I can recommend the CSM and BBC as probably some of the best, general, reporting. Asia Times does a good job as well. If you like variety, Fark, yes, Fark, does a damn good job of covering the breadth of opinion/flame wars.
That's another thing to make sure you know. Much of what pases for "news" nowadays is Editorial Opinion, that is, the perspective of one, yes, 1 of the 6-odd billion people on the planet. "News" on the other hand, is supposed to be a less...subjective "opinion". News is the opinion of an organization dedicdated to producing such. Yes, it's a circular definition, but it works.
The NYTimes does a good job, and the WSJ is the gold-standard. However, remember that the WSJ's Editorial Page, is just that. Know the difference, keep it in mind when reading. Lots of local newsfold do a good job. The Reuters feed is good (the problem was fixed quickly) and AP/the newswires get turned into a lot of stories. When you read the same story in a few different places, you see the different depth that some places go into. That is the real difference, i.e. how far someone goes into the story, how many things they relate to it, and how dense it can be made with "FACT". Capitalized, bolded and quoted for EMPHASIS! Facts are the stuff of news, opinion is the stuff of pundits.
Know the difference. If something from a 'news' source isn't labeled one or the other, IT'S CRAP! (it can also be crap for not getting the facts right)
This story is so very damaging to Reuters. Critics will trot it out (and ignore their own b.s.) endlessly. It might become a cliche.
Such is the state of things in this day and age.
After that I'd suggest wading into the blogs. There's a reason that's a mainstream buzzword, some of the "crap" out there is awesome. If 90% of everthing is crap, 8,000 worthwhile blogs came out in the last hour.
This is a prediction from someone who also is a dissertation away from a doctorate (honorary) in Philosophy as well, so take note. One day blogs and news will mean the same thing. Think about it (and yes,
I'd predict in 20 years, you won't ask what's going on in world news..you'll ask what's on the blogs today.
Basically, there's more than enough to shake a stick at, but if you are limited in time...Google News is the best.