For the most part, the only "hack" on the closed realms was duplicated items.(though to quite an absurd degree at times) There were not many hacks other than a map hack, which wasn't THAT good.
But what hacks existed were quite... Powerful. The white gloves for instance. There were white rings too.
Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.
And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.
Don't be so sure. Since 1984 Louisiana has been a beneficiary of Federal spending, receiving more than $1.20 per tax dollar contributed since 1988. Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html (Flash app linked. Base PDF available from http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf). I'm not sure if the leases from oil rigs is accounted for in this research, but according to the state's DNR page (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/min/petlan/petlan.asp) there's a whole office division dedicated to tracking such leases. Further, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF, 744,782 acres (or only 2.6%) of Louisiana is Federally owned as of 1996. I don't imagine that changes much, so the relative age of the document shouldn't be of concern. Perhaps The Fed is hoarding the most lucrative part of the state... According to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls3-17_02.pdf, only 65,161 acres are in a "Producing" status. Huh. There are thirteen other states that have more Federal Lands in a Producing status...
A better idea would be to create a new kind of gutter. Maybe one that could be manually (or automatically) tilted over to dump out all of the debris, instead of trying to clean it in the upright position.
Or perhaps a perforated gutter cover that lets the water in but keeps the debris out. Like this. Or some other method of preventing clogged gutters, like a curved cover that water will follow, but leaves will not like this.
If I were more into politics than science, I would start some movement to have these restrained minorities unite on some website and plan to move in mass to desolate areas where their vote counts heavily. However that is one arduous process that I hope someone else takes on.
You know, I don't quite get it. I've seen bigger arseholes in upper management or on the cover of some management magazines, and noone gets a shock at seeing those;)
Well, now seriously, it was just an arse. Admittedly a rather stretched one, but I gather there must be _some_ demand for seeing that on a woman, judging by the whole category of porn and whole sites dedicated to it. I haven't heard of people reeling in shock after being exposed to almost seeing a <insert female pornstar>'s kidneys up her rear end after an anal scene. Or sometimes in the middle of it.
Seriously, it wasn't the most appealing or aesthetically pleasing picture out there, I'll grant that, but I just can't figure out the _horror_ some people claim to have experienced seeing it. It seems a rather disproportionate response. You'd figure that a simple, "hmm, how's this relevant to the topic at hand?" and hitting the back button would be enough for all practical purposes. Horror or shock? Erm, why?
Or was it just the implicit hint of homosexuality that gives the average male in some parts of the world the idea that he must seem properly outraged and horrified by it, lest someone might get the idea that he's gay too? Not trolling, just genuinely trying to figure it out. FWIW, I'm not a fan of hard core porn and I find images of a stretched anus or vagina to be... unattractive. That said, I think it's mostly about context. With said pornography, the image is placed in the context of some number of people fucking or masturbating, with some lead up to the image in question (such as searching for said image, or other images in a set getting more and more graphic, or the very fact that the viewer is visiting a website dedicated to such imagery).
To add the requisite bad analogy, a stealth link to goatse is a bit like a slap in the face when you thought you were all alone. Quite unexpected and not pleasant (to most people, at least).
Then again, perhaps it's a bit like finger nails on a chalk board (if such an experience is still common knowledge). Sure the noise is unpleasant, but for the most part reacting to it with such vehemence is a crowd response. It helps you feel like you fit in.
...and satellite is unusuable for anything but web-browsing due to latency. I disagree. Video teleconferencing, MMORPGs, Skype all work fine over geosync satellite (even without TCP proxies). Coding is a bit tough if the machine you are working on isn't local, but even that is do-able.
Now if your only option is satellite down, POTS up, I concede truth in your statement. But that's a bandwidth limitation, not the fault of satellite latency.
And what do you base your trust on? Where's the foundation? You state that faith is belief without evidence, and trust is build up over time (with supporting evidence, I assume).
You need to believe in the evidence, don't you? You need to believe in the method that garners the evidence, (and in the tests you perform on that method to make sure the method is valid, and the checks that you place on those test, etc.)? Further, it seems to me that you need to have faith that your perception and interpretation of the evidence (after all, it's minute electrical impulses that are being processed by a massively parallel organic computer) isn't causing you to misplace your trust. How can you be sure that your self-diagnostic isn't broken? I think I'm a sane consciousness in a physical body, but what reassurances do I have that my physical body isn't tied down in a mental institution (or that I'm a brain in a jar or a construct in a computer simulation, etc.)?
To me, it's a matter of where you put your faith. Do you: 1) Believe in the ability of man to interpret, understand and explain his environment 2) Believe that "it is what it is and has always been*" 3) Spread your belief between the camps**?
I don't see how you can deny faith and claim difference from those who simplemindedly follow theism, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility.
* The universe sprung fully formed 4,000 years ago created for our benefit or to test us, or whatever. Given the possibility that it was formed with features pre-aged (fossils laid in bedrock, light from distant stars "placed" enroute, etc.), how do you prove this is not the case?
** There was a guiding hand that formed the rules that allowed our existence. Or within the rules of physics, a being (or race) of sufficient power and knowledge crafted the beginnings of life as we know it. Or something else along those lines.
Your claim that science is a belief system is to fundamentally misunderstand science. Science is a method of inquiry into the natural world, the only one we know of, that can identify objective truths. It takes zero faith or belief or anything like that to accept the outcomes of the scientific method. Not my claim, I'm just jumping in the middle here, but I have to take exception to this statement.
The "fact" that we can find those objective truths takes faith AND belief.
For those who are not talented enough to perform the experiments themselves, you have to have faith that those who are doing the experiments are, for lack of a better term, doing it right. We all have to believe that there is no grand conspiracy between those performing the experiments. So you want to test the results? See the next point.
Those who have the ability to perform the experiments, have to believe in the method and have faith that the tools they are using are not defective in some fashion that is skewing the results. They have to have faith that the perceptions we use are in some fashion tied to the way the universe works (perception is reality, after all).
Personally I believe in the scientific method. I have faith in the people who practice it. I attempt to hold an open mind. If it turns out there is some supernatural power who is nudging the results of our experiments outside our ability to detect it, I'll shrug my shoulders and continue trying to enjoy what I perceive as consciousness. Same story if it turns out the scientific method is also a ruse intended to prevent the majority of us from poking at the fabric of the universe.
But to say that faith is not needed for science... That's delusional.
No, they aren't afraid of somebody getting hurt [directly] by a Nerf gun. They're concerned about the consequences when somebody sees a bunch of people running around carrying weapons - and calls 911. Or decides to tackle the 'weapon wielder'. Or raises a vigilante posse to go after the 'weapon wielder'. Etc... Etc... seriously, have you never seen a nerf gun? No one would EVER mistake one of those oversized cartoon-color toys for any sort of real weapon. This is done on purpose. They're nerf guns, fer cripes sake! That depends entirelyontheowner.
Can't help but reply. I find it hilarious that you are requesting IPv6 support, with an advertised website in IPv4 space. I understand that http://:1/index.html would be far less subtle, but still...
Shouldn't be hidden from me anyway, its MY phone, i bought it, its MINE.. If i want to do something stupid and brick it in the process, its my choice. ( as long as i don't go and cry to Apple for a free replacement ) It is your phone. If you want to brick it (or sell it, or use it as a hammer), feel free.
The software that comes with the phone (of which these hidden passwords are a part of) is not yours. You are licensed to use it, post activation.
I still have a pile of the various PDA's and cell phones I have had over the years.... All of these batteries are in the same pile, waiting for me to find appropriate green disposal (some day). Assuming you live in the United States, check out the Electronic Industries Alliance page. Excellent resource for finding electronics disposal sites (many free).
Well, I'll admit that it's been a while since I saw Bowling or Farenheit -- unimpressed as I was by both I only saw them once when they were released, and it's been a while now -- but if recollection serves, the thing that MM was criticizing was the NRA's decision to hold the meeting in Denver shortly after Columbine, given the situation. I personally don't see why the NRA shouldn't have been allowed to assemble, mind you -- but from MM's perspective (and I think too the perspective of his supporters) just the fact that they decided to assemble is what was upsetting. The reason I said I thought your example was pretty weak was because of that -- because I don't think the fact that he also mentioned that "he'd fought for the right to assemble" materially impacted the reality of what MM was attacking in the first place, which was that the decision was made to assemble at all. To them, saying he has "the right to assemble" for any reason whatsoever is callous, or something. Obviously, as Americans we have the right to assemble, the Moore-ophiles don't contest that (I don't think). They just think he shouldn't have made the decision to. I find the tone is different. The full speach has a more deferential, even respectful tone to it, where as the edited piece strikes me as defiant for the sake of conceit. In any case, aparrently, the choice was not his to make. *shrug* Perhaps bylaws could have been amended (but without holding a meeting? Sounds like the classic chicken and egg...).
As for the whole Condi thing, adding the rest of the quote doesn't really convince me of much, because what the US apparently forgot was that for all his dictatorial tendencies, Iraq under Saddam was a secular state and one of the most hated regimes of Al Qaeda. I can't remember exactly how the quote was used in Farenheit, but my guess is that MM was quoting a bunch of US muckity-mucks saying 9/11 and Iraq were linked, which lest you forget was how they convinced us that war in Iraq was a good idea. Certainly, he probably made it sound as though Condi was saying that the two were directly related, instead of ideologically related. That's a perversion of what she meant, perhaps, but from my perspective, either way, she was full of shit. Total agreement here. There was a tremendous amount of waffling and cover-up related to the whole September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent re-invasion of Iraq. I don't think this practice has lessened much, if at all.
But to answer your point, yes, this quote seems much more manipulative than the first you produced. I don't think it'll win over many MM supporters, though, because Condi's full quote is just as ridiculous as the snippet, taken in hindsight. But their implications are clearly different, so I see your point. So much as I have a point.:o) I was more defending the point made by others.
So you think the messages in both pieces are the same? Huh. Interesting.
Check out the entirety of the cuts, and see if your opinion changes.
If not, how about:
Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
"The author of that website, I believe, would disagree with your assessment of a lack of lies in the movie."
I doubt it (then he would have called it lies not deceits) especially since nobody has objectively pointed out lies. From the linked site (my own emphasis added):
Finally, Moore's line, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens," happens to be a personal lie. Stranded in California on September 11, Michael Moore ended up driving home to New York City. On September 14, he wrote to his fans "Our daughter is fine, mostly frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive." Moore acceded to the wishes of his wife and daughter, and drove back to New York.
Does this not count as a lie in your book? Perhaps because he used the word "wanted" in one instance and "my desire" in another, you can call it "creative storytelling".
Perhaps he knows that less intelligent people don't understand the art of the subjective documentary, perhaps he wishes to capitalize on that, or perhaps he genuinely doesn't get it either. Perhaps more people should study art more - or just study in general. That's the really unplesant side of Moores movies, it underlines just how many idiots there are. Its a sad fact. I'd group the many closed minded "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" people in with idiots. I don't support Bush. I also don't support a smear campain against him. The current administration has perpetrated enough wrong that you don't have to be misleading to get your point across.
From my point of view, Moore seems to count on and take advantage of the under-educated, and just plain stupid.
Thank Taco for ignore lists. Meh. I have nothing constructive to say to this.
"Before you place too much stock in the supposed evidence that was in Fahrenheit 9/11 you really should take the time to read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11. A large part of that movie was a complete misrepresentation of fact, so much so that I wouldn't have faith in anything that Michael Moore puts out."
You may not be able to read, but he was talking about he, the OP said "I've seen concerted efforts to discredit Moore, and they always hinge on a different interpretation of the facts, not catching him in an outright falsehood"
And that's the site you link to, its not called lies - because there are no lies. Its called "Deceits" because if you are stupid enough you might have felt "deceived" (strangly enough its mostly americans who don't seem to get it). I remember people were looking at those so called 50 deciets and all of it is just anohter point of view and spin Quotes from the linked site:
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided [...] that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false....such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite.
To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information. It's wrong when a President lies. It's wrong when a talk radio host lies. And it's wrong when a film-maker lies.
The author of that website, I believe, would disagree with your assessment of a lack of lies in the movie. I might as well, depending on how one defines a lie.
And btw, most news programs do things quite close to that - as long as they don't make people say something the don't mean its fine. Did he make Heston say something he didn't mean? I'd say yes.
In part, what was said:
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.
I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.
The same quote, edited:
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, [...t]his is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.
"I am sorry you feel that way. I have fought for the freedom to assemble, and I intend to excersise it."
For what it's worth, broadband is actually defined in the US (according to the instructions to Form 477* (PDF, and XLS file warnings respectively)) as wired "lines" or wireless "channels" that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.
At least non-bonded ISDN lines are not counted. *shrug*
*WTF is Form 477, you ask? It's a form that must be filled out by broadband providers (wireline, wireless, and moble telephony). Seems like it would be a pretty authoritative place to define what broadband is. Now whether this report takes that in to consideration is another matter entirely.
This is an old, tired argument. Sure, North Korea is more densely populated. The Netherlands too. But the density does not really say it all, it's just an average. My dad got top marks in his course in statistics, and he went on all his life pontificating about the "chicken average": I eat two chickens, you eat none, on average we ate one each". There are surely immense areas of the US without broadband (like Yellowstone park, say), but what about areas as dense as NYC?
The question is better put as: how many Americans live in high-density areas? Quite a few. The overall density is low because there is a damn half of the country that is uninhabited, and that's before counting in Alaska.
Heh. Amusingly enough, Alaska has a higher than (United States) average broadband subscription rate:
Partly due to the fact that half of the state's population resides in one city, partly due to the fact that one company strives to be a good community member. The USF certainly encourages the stewardship.
That drobo looks pretty cool and it costs around $500, however you can buy a ReadyNAS NV+ for about $150 more (with no disks, just like the Drobo). The prices I found in a short search showed about $950 for a 250GB version, with no diskless version available. Further looking shows reasonably reputable dealers selling the diskless version for >$550. That makes the drobo's avantage even less.
Infrant (wow, just checked their website and it looks like they were bought by NetGear) created their own version of RAID that specifically addresses the issue of capacity and expansion. It's a nice transitional blend from RAID-1 to RAID-5 and does offer the ability to increase the total capacity (albeit with a lot of drive swapping). Same idea, less cost.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part, the only "hack" on the closed realms was duplicated items.(though to quite an absurd degree at times) There were not many hacks other than a map hack, which wasn't THAT good.
But what hacks existed were quite... Powerful. The white gloves for instance. There were white rings too.
Well, in that case...we need to stop sending all that tax money to the Federal govt., and start keeping it to ourselves to fund our needs and rebuilding zones.
And...one big help for LA, would to be to just take posession of all those nice oil rigs/drilling operations and leases for sure from the Federal govt. and keep all that lease and royalty money for ourselves, rather than having it go into the US general funds. With that, we could MORE than take care of our rebuilding problems.
Don't be so sure. Since 1984 Louisiana has been a beneficiary of Federal spending, receiving more than $1.20 per tax dollar contributed since 1988. Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html (Flash app linked. Base PDF available from http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf). I'm not sure if the leases from oil rigs is accounted for in this research, but according to the state's DNR page (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/min/petlan/petlan.asp) there's a whole office division dedicated to tracking such leases. Further, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF, 744,782 acres (or only 2.6%) of Louisiana is Federally owned as of 1996. I don't imagine that changes much, so the relative age of the document shouldn't be of concern. Perhaps The Fed is hoarding the most lucrative part of the state... According to http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/pls3-17_02.pdf, only 65,161 acres are in a "Producing" status. Huh. There are thirteen other states that have more Federal Lands in a Producing status...
Perhaps by upping the property taxes (5th lowest in the country), you could better cover the real cost of living there. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/31.html
For what it's worth, I know full well that my state of residence (Alaska) is also a beneficiary of the Union, on parity with Louisiana.
A better idea would be to create a new kind of gutter. Maybe one that could be manually (or automatically) tilted over to dump out all of the debris, instead of trying to clean it in the upright position.
Or perhaps a perforated gutter cover that lets the water in but keeps the debris out. Like this. Or some other method of preventing clogged gutters, like a curved cover that water will follow, but leaves will not like this.
If I were more into politics than science, I would start some movement to have these restrained minorities unite on some website and plan to move in mass to desolate areas where their vote counts heavily. However that is one arduous process that I hope someone else takes on.
One example of such a website:http://freestateproject.org/
More support is needed. Please spread the word.
Well, now seriously, it was just an arse. Admittedly a rather stretched one, but I gather there must be _some_ demand for seeing that on a woman, judging by the whole category of porn and whole sites dedicated to it. I haven't heard of people reeling in shock after being exposed to almost seeing a <insert female pornstar>'s kidneys up her rear end after an anal scene. Or sometimes in the middle of it.
Seriously, it wasn't the most appealing or aesthetically pleasing picture out there, I'll grant that, but I just can't figure out the _horror_ some people claim to have experienced seeing it. It seems a rather disproportionate response. You'd figure that a simple, "hmm, how's this relevant to the topic at hand?" and hitting the back button would be enough for all practical purposes. Horror or shock? Erm, why?
Or was it just the implicit hint of homosexuality that gives the average male in some parts of the world the idea that he must seem properly outraged and horrified by it, lest someone might get the idea that he's gay too? Not trolling, just genuinely trying to figure it out. FWIW, I'm not a fan of hard core porn and I find images of a stretched anus or vagina to be... unattractive. That said, I think it's mostly about context. With said pornography, the image is placed in the context of some number of people fucking or masturbating, with some lead up to the image in question (such as searching for said image, or other images in a set getting more and more graphic, or the very fact that the viewer is visiting a website dedicated to such imagery).
To add the requisite bad analogy, a stealth link to goatse is a bit like a slap in the face when you thought you were all alone. Quite unexpected and not pleasant (to most people, at least).
Then again, perhaps it's a bit like finger nails on a chalk board (if such an experience is still common knowledge). Sure the noise is unpleasant, but for the most part reacting to it with such vehemence is a crowd response. It helps you feel like you fit in.
...and satellite is unusuable for anything but web-browsing due to latency. I disagree. Video teleconferencing, MMORPGs, Skype all work fine over geosync satellite (even without TCP proxies). Coding is a bit tough if the machine you are working on isn't local, but even that is do-able.Now if your only option is satellite down, POTS up, I concede truth in your statement. But that's a bandwidth limitation, not the fault of satellite latency.
And what do you base your trust on? Where's the foundation? You state that faith is belief without evidence, and trust is build up over time (with supporting evidence, I assume).
You need to believe in the evidence, don't you? You need to believe in the method that garners the evidence, (and in the tests you perform on that method to make sure the method is valid, and the checks that you place on those test, etc.)? Further, it seems to me that you need to have faith that your perception and interpretation of the evidence (after all, it's minute electrical impulses that are being processed by a massively parallel organic computer) isn't causing you to misplace your trust. How can you be sure that your self-diagnostic isn't broken? I think I'm a sane consciousness in a physical body, but what reassurances do I have that my physical body isn't tied down in a mental institution (or that I'm a brain in a jar or a construct in a computer simulation, etc.)?
To me, it's a matter of where you put your faith. Do you:
1) Believe in the ability of man to interpret, understand and explain his environment
2) Believe that "it is what it is and has always been*"
3) Spread your belief between the camps**?
I don't see how you can deny faith and claim difference from those who simplemindedly follow theism, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility.
* The universe sprung fully formed 4,000 years ago created for our benefit or to test us, or whatever. Given the possibility that it was formed with features pre-aged (fossils laid in bedrock, light from distant stars "placed" enroute, etc.), how do you prove this is not the case?
** There was a guiding hand that formed the rules that allowed our existence. Or within the rules of physics, a being (or race) of sufficient power and knowledge crafted the beginnings of life as we know it. Or something else along those lines.
The "fact" that we can find those objective truths takes faith AND belief.
For those who are not talented enough to perform the experiments themselves, you have to have faith that those who are doing the experiments are, for lack of a better term, doing it right. We all have to believe that there is no grand conspiracy between those performing the experiments. So you want to test the results? See the next point.
Those who have the ability to perform the experiments, have to believe in the method and have faith that the tools they are using are not defective in some fashion that is skewing the results. They have to have faith that the perceptions we use are in some fashion tied to the way the universe works (perception is reality, after all).
Personally I believe in the scientific method. I have faith in the people who practice it. I attempt to hold an open mind. If it turns out there is some supernatural power who is nudging the results of our experiments outside our ability to detect it, I'll shrug my shoulders and continue trying to enjoy what I perceive as consciousness. Same story if it turns out the scientific method is also a ruse intended to prevent the majority of us from poking at the fabric of the universe.
But to say that faith is not needed for science... That's delusional.
Via.
Sort of. Add in a bit of gzip for TCP/UDP, and top with some TCP handshake optimization.
For the info straight from the marketing department see http://www.riverbed.com/technology/data_streamlining/, http://www.riverbed.com/technology/trans_streamlining/ and http://www.riverbed.com/technology/app_streamlining/.
We recommend having it professionally installed. So do the Irregular Mythbusters.
Bah. It's what I get for not using preview.
Can't help but reply. I find it hilarious that you are requesting IPv6 support, with an advertised website in IPv4 space. I understand that http://:1/index.html would be far less subtle, but still...
The software that comes with the phone (of which these hidden passwords are a part of) is not yours. You are licensed to use it, post activation.
So you think the messages in both pieces are the same? Huh. Interesting.
Check out the entirety of the cuts, and see if your opinion changes.
If not, how about:
Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
Obviously not a Heston quote, but more egregious.
I doubt it (then he would have called it lies not deceits) especially since nobody has objectively pointed out lies. From the linked site (my own emphasis added):
Finally, Moore's line, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens," happens to be a personal lie. Stranded in California on September 11, Michael Moore ended up driving home to New York City. On September 14, he wrote to his fans "Our daughter is fine, mostly frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive." Moore acceded to the wishes of his wife and daughter, and drove back to New York.
Does this not count as a lie in your book? Perhaps because he used the word "wanted" in one instance and "my desire" in another, you can call it "creative storytelling". Perhaps he knows that less intelligent people don't understand the art of the subjective documentary, perhaps he wishes to capitalize on that, or perhaps he genuinely doesn't get it either. Perhaps more people should study art more - or just study in general. That's the really unplesant side of Moores movies, it underlines just how many idiots there are. Its a sad fact. I'd group the many closed minded "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" people in with idiots. I don't support Bush. I also don't support a smear campain against him. The current administration has perpetrated enough wrong that you don't have to be misleading to get your point across.
From my point of view, Moore seems to count on and take advantage of the under-educated, and just plain stupid. Thank Taco for ignore lists. Meh. I have nothing constructive to say to this.
You may not be able to read, but he was talking about he, the OP said "I've seen concerted efforts to discredit Moore, and they always hinge on a different interpretation of the facts, not catching him in an outright falsehood"
And that's the site you link to, its not called lies - because there are no lies. Its called "Deceits" because if you are stupid enough you might have felt "deceived" (strangly enough its mostly americans who don't seem to get it). I remember people were looking at those so called 50 deciets and all of it is just anohter point of view and spin Quotes from the linked site:
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided [...] that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.
To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information. It's wrong when a President lies. It's wrong when a talk radio host lies. And it's wrong when a film-maker lies.
The author of that website, I believe, would disagree with your assessment of a lack of lies in the movie. I might as well, depending on how one defines a lie.
In part, what was said:
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.
I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.
The same quote, edited:
I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, [...t]his is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.
"I am sorry you feel that way. I have fought for the freedom to assemble, and I intend to excersise it."
vs.
"I [...] have [...] the freedom to assemble."
For what it's worth, broadband is actually defined in the US (according to the instructions to Form 477* (PDF, and XLS file warnings respectively)) as wired "lines" or wireless "channels" that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.
At least non-bonded ISDN lines are not counted. *shrug*
*WTF is Form 477, you ask? It's a form that must be filled out by broadband providers (wireline, wireless, and moble telephony). Seems like it would be a pretty authoritative place to define what broadband is. Now whether this report takes that in to consideration is another matter entirely.
This is an old, tired argument. Sure, North Korea is more densely populated. The Netherlands too. But the density does not really say it all, it's just an average. My dad got top marks in his course in statistics, and he went on all his life pontificating about the "chicken average": I eat two chickens, you eat none, on average we ate one each". There are surely immense areas of the US without broadband (like Yellowstone park, say), but what about areas as dense as NYC?
The question is better put as: how many Americans live in high-density areas? Quite a few. The overall density is low because there is a damn half of the country that is uninhabited, and that's before counting in Alaska.
Heh. Amusingly enough, Alaska has a higher than (United States) average broadband subscription rate:http://isen.com/blog/2006/04/state-by-state-broad
Partly due to the fact that half of the state's population resides in one city, partly due to the fact that one company strives to be a good community member. The USF certainly encourages the stewardship.
buy a ReadyNAS NV+ for about $150 more (with no disks, just like the
Drobo). The prices I found in a short search showed about $950 for a 250GB version, with no diskless version available. Further looking shows reasonably reputable dealers selling the diskless version for >$550. That makes the drobo's avantage even less.