Can you imagine what would happen if, say, British Intelligence flew a chopper into Washington D.C., across the river from the Pentagon, riddled some retired IRA operative with bullets and dumped his body in the Chesapeake Bay? Do you think the Pentagon would give back their helicoptor?
Yeah, they would. And they'd probably invite the British SAS agents who killed the guy over for beer. The IRA has killed at least one American during the peak of its operations. They're a terror group like any other, and being a part of civilized society (I know, hard to imagine!), the US would likely do nothing, assuming all else is equal.
I guess we'll have to wait and see the results. You may find their children tested better than yours. Will you still accuse them of cheating then?
You seem convinced this is a fairly recent development. The US has invested billions of dollars into stealth and related technologies for the better part of 4 decades. It's also well known that the Chinese have lifted sensitive information from DoD systems related to stealth in the recent past. This is also known as stealing.
Right. AMD does exactly the same 'ripping off'. They speed limit for binning purposes and disable perfectly good cores and perfectly good cache to turn out lower end cpus. The only thing they dont do is give you a sanctioned upgrade path that maintains your warranty. Thats much better!
I don't think that's really what the OP was suggesting. Everyone here knows that AMD and Intel both do this. The difference is that AMD has made is a selling point for much longer (think Black Edition) and that part of the allure to AMD for some bands of enthusiasts has been the idea that the company makes no bones about unlocking extra cores at your own risk. Compared to Intel who has a history of permanently disabling such unlocking via microcode, I think you can see where the OP was coming from. AMD: Unlock at your own risk, Intel: haha, sorry.
Of course, that appears to be changing now.
I think the conclusion that some in this thread have made about this being proof that Intel has no real competition is somewhat false. It's true that Intel's offerings are far superior in terms of performance (not so much in terms of price), but to assume that Intel offering software unlocking is somehow a sign that no one can compete with them is absurd. AMD has been doing this for much longer, except that the unlocking capabilities fell on the shoulders of motherboard manufacturers which admittedly has created its own niche market of enthusiast hardware.
That said, it amused me how you managed to talk about everything but the GPs point.
Scroll down below your comment window and read the text under the "Important Stuff":
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
The OP's "point" was comprised of two sentences which stated (paraphrasing) that there is no left-wing media in the US. Humorously, it also stated that the US has no perspective of left/right as a consequence (and all the posts in reply to me suggest that the same goes for Europeans, except with regards to left-of-center politics!). You're wrong, because I did address the OP by offering my own opinions of US media--which is apparently disallowed, but whatever. I was also somewhat pleasantly surprised: I re-read my post from last night, and it was much more fairly written than I remembered it, so I can only surmise that your response is intended to troll or that it was such a knee-jerk reaction, you didn't want it associated with your account. And that's fine. That's what the AC checkbox is for.
I initially didn't want to reply because of the trollish nature of your comment, but then I realized I overlooked your statement that I had not addressed OP's post and remembered the Slashdot posting FAQ. It bugs me when other people receive similar replies, so I'd like to remind everyone that Slashdot rules do recommend posting replies to others rather than posting directly to the story, which works particularly if they're tangentially related. So please keep this in mind before offering "corrections" along those lines!
Does the tea party debacle not teach you anything? The Democrats have been dealing with a conservative wing and a liberal wing since the 60's. All it took in 2009/2010 was to grab 3 conservative democrats (which was really easy) and the republicans could filibuster.
It does. It teaches me that knee-jerk reactions like yours are the only ones that I can expect in reply, rather than something more substantive, helpful, and polite.
Of course, who am I kidding? These are the Interwebs where polite discourse has never existed. Although the personal sniping on Slashdot has grown markedly worse since 2008.
Of course comments like this suggest that some other system has benefits! What exactly are you saying - that the rest of the world should understand that "America is best in every possible way imaginable" is the only comment that is welcome?
No, what I'm suggesting is the opposite. The general gist of the replies to me (in addition to your own) is that comments like yours are the only ones that are welcome!
Honestly, read some of the other replies to me and you'll see what the overwhelming majority agree with you and espouse that their world view is the only one that is correct. Indeed, it's much the opposite of your knee-jerk reaction.
re we talking about the same CNN that positively jizzed themselves with excitement in the runup to Iraq War 2.0?
That has everything to do with ratings and almost nothing to do with politics. Remember: Media organizations operate under the objective of making money first, reporting news second. Picking their operational "bias" is simply a means to an end.
I think the rest of your post can be answered along similar lines. Your own biases, though, prohibit you from seeing anything other than your own world view (right-leaning media, panders to the Republicans--glossing over the left-leaning commentary programs that pander to the Democrats), which is interesting because you're arguing that same case for those who disagree.
In reply to missing the point, read this. Although my objective was to insight and inflame Europeans enough to read the rest of my post (which unfortunately worked far too well and completely distracted from the rest of my point), I was more interested in sharing my opinions of US media. My immediate object was not to contradict the OP, although doing so was indeed a tool to get attention. It didn't work, and in retrospect, I should have argued that the OP's point illustrates perfectly a difference of cultures and the individual momentum it provides us with; US culture tends toward leaning right while European culture tends toward leaning left. Thus, it's all relative, and it's somewhat narrowminded to suggest that there "is no political left" in the US as concrete truth. Yes, from a European perspective that is true, but in the US it (generally) is not. Again, it's based on the cultural frame of reference one happens to be using, and the implication of the OP (and others, in reply to me) is that their own cultural political references are the only ones that matter. This strikes me as arrogant, but it's also not surprising. Trying to be reasonable and fair is one of the hardest things to accomplish; while I'm guilty of it as much as the next guy, it does bother me that there is an attempt by some of us here to paint ourselves as objective when we outright refuse to honor others' views.
Which is to say that it's somewhat ironic. Americans are blamed (and rightfully so) for being closed-minded and culturally insensitive, but I suspect that this is actually a symptom of humanity more than it is of any one particular group of people. The Europeans are viewed as more civilized than we are, and thus they are typically absolved of such insensitivities. With the exception of the French, however, who have unfortunately been brutalized by just about everyone over the course of the last century--but more recently the Americans (think Freedom Fries).
It's probably pointless of me to reiterate those same points, considering that--again--the perceptions we each share largely prevent us from seeing our own biases, thus leading to the entire discussion in this thread!
I don't have much positive to say about any of the news organisations in the US though, it's all sensationalised and trivialised to the extent that it's hardly worth watching any of it.
I would generally agree, which is why I admit I haven't watched any televised news in years (which might also make my own observations dated and incorrect). As I stated in my original post, I generally prefer to read from the AP wire. There are a number of good aggregators out there, and network news in the US is a pointless exercise in frustration.
I am not the person you responded to, but I will echo their sentiment. I'm Australian, but I spent a couple of years living in the US (and worked for a US company for ~6 years, so dealt with a lot of Americans).
Coincidentally, most of my relatives are split between the UK and Australia.
I understand your general reaction, because if my cousins are representative at all of Australian culture, it's far more left-leaning than even parts of Europe--hence your response and agreement with the OP to whom I was replying.
What these responses (yours included) have taught me is that we are each entrenched in the biases and political leanings of our own respective cultures and are generally unreceptive to the same of others, usually labeling them with unsavory things like "left" or "right" as appropriate. When this becomes dangerous, though, is when either side believes that its approach is the One True Way and opinions to the contrary are squelched.
In short, it does explain why you cannot see Democrats as the political left in the US: Your own cultural biases are likely such that everyone is to the right of your persuasion. There's nothing wrong with that, except for the implicit declaration that your belief is concrete fact without regard to the opinions and, essentially, the culture of others.
Can you cite an example of 'left wing' media other than the Daily Show?
Slate, most news commentary programs on NBC, CBS, and MSNBC ranging from Chris Matthews to just about any other selection you can make during the evening hours. It's been years since I've suffered through it, but that seems to be my memory.
CNN generally seems to be more fair and even-handed, generally focusing on the news rather than knee-jerk reactionary reporting typical of both sides in the US.
Need more examples? I picked the Daily Show because it was the first thing that came to mind, not so much because of a lack of other examples.
I should also point out that my objective was not primarily to contradict the OP. I can back this up by the statement:
My personal take on the media is thus; please take it as only an opinion, also rooted in my own personal biases, etc.:
It's something of a shame that no real political discussion can be had on Slashdot, particularly in terms of opinion sharing without a significant amount of personal sniping taking place (see the AC who responded above your post for a good example of this--although that AC is probably an American even though he/she claims otherwise, just based on their rudeness!). Worse, it's disappointing when any attempt to inform, share opinions, or otherwise is met with mild hostility simply because of statements that disagree with predetermined biases inherent to other cultures and so forth. Aside: I have family overseas in the UK and Australia, so while I attempt to approach things with an open mind whenever I do contact foreign culture--and I'm not particularly keen on making assumptions that I know everything about European/Australian media and/or culture--it does disappoint me that Americans are generally not met with the same respect. (Though, much of that is probably deserved.)
I admit that my intent was to mildly inflame Europeans enough to get them to read the rest of my post, and I think that I did it well enough to where I did deserve some of the harsh responses I received, but it is something of a shame that the remaining three examples/paragraphs were entirely ignored except by your post. Thank you for being the only poster who read the entire thing and for being reasonably fair and open in your reply. It's rare.
I'm a European and, from where I'm sitting, the problem isn't cultural bias on either side. It's the way any criticism of any aspect of American culture results in "individuals, like you, generally believe they're far more civilized (excuse me--civilised) and above such things".
I think that's because it typically comes off as self-righteous, cultural superiority to some degree. Consider that most posters who do make such criticisms usually include comments about the greater benefits of their own system(s), and you might understand where I'm coming from.
So when right-leaning Americans talk about Democrats as if they are virtually communists, it really is very hard for anyone outside America not to burst out laughing.
Perhaps it's because Europe is far more left-leaning than the US?
I think this statement is somewhat amusing, because it echoes the same sentiments that I was referring to in the first place!
ou don't need to be pessimistic by nature to have common sense. If you told anyone "hey, I'm renting my home out to a total stranger from craigslist while I'm out of the country", they would tell you that you're an idiot. Your parents would tell you this. Your friends would. Your coworkers would. Your neighbors would. Your landlord would. There's a reason your landlord makes you fill out a lengthy application, submit a security deposit, and perform a credit check and criminal background check.
I think it's feasible to be so highly optimistic, one becomes gravely naive, which was the crux of my point (which, in retrospect, I don't think I made very clear). I think that's what happened in this circumstance, just based off of that individual's other blog posts (besides the ones in question). My point wasn't so much about common sense (or lack thereof) as much as it was an attempt to 1) play devil's advocate, 2) explain why I think we were reacting to the news as we were, and 3) attempting to understand why the individual in the story did what she did that brought her into the circumstances she wrote about. Consider it a sort of thought game, although I didn't quite have the time when I wrote my post to make good of that very well.
I'm not so sure I made those points as obvious as I was hoping, so if you need clarification, I'd be happy to provide it.
There is not a single media organisation in the United States that espouses any kind of opinion that's even remotely "left of center". Your nation has drifted so far to the right you've no perspective left.
I suspect you're European; not that it matters, but it's important insofar as many Slashdotters who participate in discussions related to US politics who espouse similar beliefs to yours are often unaware of their own bias, which has helpfully been created by their respective domestic media. Just as many Americans have significant misunderstandings of non-American culture, so do many non-Americans of American culture (and politics, media, and so forth). It's just unfortunate that individuals, like you, generally believe they're far more civilized (excuse me--civilised) and above such things, in spite of being almost as bad as many of my fellow countrymen in some regards. (With the exception that Americans are generally poor communicators and typically quite rude, depending on which part of the country they're from.)
My personal take on the media is thus; please take it as only an opinion, also rooted in my own personal biases, etc.:
"Mainstream" US media and talk shows (think the Daily Show, etc.): Left-of-center. Hard to believe? They're generally more critical of our political right and usually very receptive and supportive of our political left; think the opposite of Fox News, except without the fanfare since public perception on the Internet is largely in agreement with and supportive of these networks and programs.
Associated Press wires: Generally neutral. I tend to read the AP wire before anything else, because 1) I'd rather read the news than watch it and 2) whatever bias exists in an AP article is usually easy to detect; further, their articles are typically of good quality, although not quite as good as the BBC. They do report some sensational and "whacky" news, which is unfortunate, but I suppose everyone has to make money somehow.
Fox News: Right-of-center. As with the Daily Show and other left-leaning talk programs, Fox's right-leaning new commentary generally receives a bad wrap from viewership of the opposite persuasion. I understand that their business news is quite good; however, I don't watch it.
I'm probably wasting my breath considering you've already made up your mind. But in the offhand chance you're willing to listen to the opinions (which is all these are) of an American, it is here for you to read. I suspect I'm liable to be flamed for it. It seems that whenever I try to be reasonable and fair, someone with a vindictive personality has to come out and blast me.:)
And yet my bet would be that the vast majority of them lock their doors when they leave the house, have insurance, etc.
While true, I sincerely believe that there are some people who don't fully appreciate the dichotomy they've created by simultaneously locking their doors and renting out their place to complete strangers (it seems odd to us, but again, the personality type in question is one that the more rational types--which includes almost all of Slashdot, with the exception of some ACs--find difficult to understand).
Although, I can explain the insurance: Most states require it, by law, and with the Affordable Healthcare Act, health insurance will be a legal requirement by next year. So yes, I understand your point (it's a good one!), but I was hoping to play devil's advocate enough to explain my take on why someone would do something quite so stupid without fully understanding (or appreciating) why it is such.
Yeah, it seems like a good deal of the anti-Opera posts are from people who haven't even looked at it in the last 10 years and bash it with claims that haven't been true in as long (or ever, in some cases).
To be fair, I believe some of the responses were tongue-in-cheek. Certainly, some of them are outright bashing Opera, but I'm not sure how many of those are sincere.
Again, I don't like Opera (personal preference, purely); it's a nice browser, as it is small, fast, and works well. But I agree: It doesn't justify bashing it for some of the reasons espoused up the thread.
Your response while having the pretense of reason actually comes off as argumentative.
That's because it was. The parent post was written in a similar thread; I replied in kind, particularly since the points raised were rather petty--much like yours, in fact--and arguing a case that only someone delusional would have seen as rational. It struck a nerve, though, didn't it, most especially since I suspect you might be the OP posting as an AC to avoid blame (or is that guilt)?;)
Absurd. Your post, I mean.
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I thank you for that!
I'd just like to point out that in my original post, I wasn't so much debating the Irony in the situation, but rather asking for clarification as to why it was Ironic. The summary implies that a lot more has went on with Apache and Java than stated and since I'm not clued up on it, I was curious for more information. I was half-expecting someone to say that Apache invested into Java in some way, before decrying it to be sour.
That's fair enough. In my defense, I had the unfortunate luck to have seen several corrections offered to the use of "irony" from various sites (Slashdot included), so I was a little raw over interpreting what I thought was a similar circumstance here.:)
My apologies for the misinterpretation and a good day to you.
Second of all, the President didn't increase the debt single-handedly. You cannot point out any amount of programs that he himself pushed for that led to a deficit of $3 trillion since his first budget (the 2010 budget, since the 2009 budget was Bush's).
Congress ultimately passes the budget, and it might be helpful to remember who held a majority from 2007-2011. So while it's unfair to blame economic woes solely on Obama, the same holds true for Bush. Certainly they sign the budget into law, but the constitutional authority is not theirs to make (although they do have influence over their respective parties, so you could point to that as a somewhat circular method of blaming the president).
You could, however, argue that mutual control over Congress and the Whitehouse implicitly places budgetary blame on any given President, which would create significant overlap during the Bush years and two years of Obama's term. Given data from the CBO and treasury department, it is interesting how significant the debt increase was between 2007 and this year alone.
A cursory and possibly questionable search revealed a chart on Wikipedia that cited this spreadsheet as its source. Since you're interested in the math, it might be a good place to start rather than resorting to the same classification of rhetoric as was contained in the post to which you were replying.
No flaming here, my friend. I am only hoping this latest economic disaster on the part of "mainstream" politics and economics teaches people a few thing.
I'm feeling pessimistic tonight: It never will.
Then again, that may be the part of me talking that just spent 15 minutes reading through all the comments above yours. Given the average Slashdotter's propensity to spout off everything mainstream media tells them to, I have absolutely no faith.
The Republican party's slow descent into insanity began when they realized that the media would unquestioningly repeat absolutely anything they said, no matter how ludicrous or patently false...
If by "the media" you mean "Fox News," then yes. If you mean CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al, then I would politely ask you if you're consuming the same media the rest of us are. I'm not sure you noticed, but the overwhelming majority of American media tends toward left-of-center.
It's a shame your post is so inane, because you have some good points. Worse, enough Slashdot mods agree with you to have rated it as insightful! Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of your post seems that you're simply 1) blinded by your disgust toward a single company, 2) stretching certain facts to make an argument, or 3) subversively trolling or attempting to troll in the hopes of starting a conversation.
I'll operate on presumption of the latter.
First, you start off by stating that Google is a "very hostile company," and then you point out examples that don't apply or are highly misinterpreted and misrepresented. Let's take this as an example:
Once upon a time, Microsoft was regularly trashed on Slashdot for using monopoly profits to destroy other businesses--the biggest sin being giving away Internet Explorer for free to dismantle companies that had no choice but to charge for their browsers. This is exactly what Google does with Android
This is not exactly what Google is doing with android. The two couldn't be any more completely different! First, Microsoft's biggest competitor in the browser market was Netscape. Netscape's biggest revenue generator was Navigator; Microsoft used their profits to trash Netscape entirely by giving away their browser for free. Navigator was Netscape's bread and butter.
The mobile market is entirely different, because you're purchasing software and hardware bundles, often with different configurations or bundled software. By your logic, Red Hat must clearly be out to eat Microsoft's lunch, considering they're giving an entire operating system away, and must therefore be among the most hostile of companies.
I'm sorry, but this comparison is fallacious.
and with any of the services it prominently displays at the top of its search results page. Remember that Google once responded to antitrust concerns by stating that its search results page was entirely algorithmically objective, but that has since been disproved--certain hard-coded search terms will display Google's services at the top of the results page, above more popular services.
There was a long debate along these lines on Slashdot when this was first reported. I don't think this creates demonstrable algorithmic weakness. It's not uncommon for companies (at least in the US) to advertise their own services. I have no trouble with Microsoft pushing their Windows upgrade service any time I open control panel on a Windows machine, nor do I have any trouble with Apple pushing their respective services any time I fire up Apple software.
Yes, Google has been evil with AdSense, but the point you're attempting to illustrate here is a weak one, and thus why it didn't gain much traction: Companies advertising their own services are not necessarily being hostile. Any reasonable person (in the legal sense) would expect a company to advertise their own services; that they're a search company doesn't make this any different.
If you sincerely want to point out that Google is a hostile company, I'd start with AdSense and examine how they've (mis)used the service to impact organizations that rely on advertising revenue. There's plenty of examples, including many who have had their entire revenue stream pulled because of various things Google didn't like, and that you seemed to have missed this suggests that you merely have an axe to grind without any consideration for reality--hence why I suspect you're a troll.
They seem to believe that by talking about openness all the time, it somehow negates hypocrisies like bundling of Flash in Chrome or signing non-neutral Internet deals with phone carriers just to prop up Android.
This point is equally inane. Bundling Flash with Chrome is not hypocritical in the slightest. Indeed, I see this as a reasonable answer to a real world problem. Flash is inherently insecrue, and Flash is widely used by the public. S
Unless I'm missing something also, it's probably the fact that a large majority of the population doesn't actually understand what the the word irony actually means.
This is appropriate for your comment. Read the entire comic, but I think it's important that you pay particular attention to the very last point along with the advice that trails it.
It's helpful to remember that while we geek-types tend toward being highly pessimistic, there are a significant amount of people who truly do live in a world where they believe nothing could possibly go wrong. For us, it's alien, simply because we generally don't trust people--and we can't; optimistic and/or ignorant programmers are likely responsible for exploits the rest of us have to deal with.
On the other hand, the response of Slashdot (again, generally speaking) is a symptom of another facet of our tendencies: We have a hard time living in someone else's shoes. Being unable to see ourselves in her position--simply because we would never commit to doing something in the first place--is certainly no excuse to treat her harshly. Was it a mistake? Maybe, but reading her blog is telling and implies that there was no way that she could possibly vet potential guests. Perhaps I can more easily empathize with some people, but regardless, what she went through is something no one should.
I'm with a handful of other posters here. What value does AirBnB add to renting if they don't give you any information about the guest until the last minute? It seems like a scam to me, and it works because there are an awful lot of people who are far too trusting and caring.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, they would. And they'd probably invite the British SAS agents who killed the guy over for beer. The IRA has killed at least one American during the peak of its operations. They're a terror group like any other, and being a part of civilized society (I know, hard to imagine!), the US would likely do nothing, assuming all else is equal.
You seem convinced this is a fairly recent development. The US has invested billions of dollars into stealth and related technologies for the better part of 4 decades. It's also well known that the Chinese have lifted sensitive information from DoD systems related to stealth in the recent past. This is also known as stealing.
For your sake, I hope you're trolling.
I don't think that's really what the OP was suggesting. Everyone here knows that AMD and Intel both do this. The difference is that AMD has made is a selling point for much longer (think Black Edition) and that part of the allure to AMD for some bands of enthusiasts has been the idea that the company makes no bones about unlocking extra cores at your own risk. Compared to Intel who has a history of permanently disabling such unlocking via microcode, I think you can see where the OP was coming from. AMD: Unlock at your own risk, Intel: haha, sorry.
Of course, that appears to be changing now.
I think the conclusion that some in this thread have made about this being proof that Intel has no real competition is somewhat false. It's true that Intel's offerings are far superior in terms of performance (not so much in terms of price), but to assume that Intel offering software unlocking is somehow a sign that no one can compete with them is absurd. AMD has been doing this for much longer, except that the unlocking capabilities fell on the shoulders of motherboard manufacturers which admittedly has created its own niche market of enthusiast hardware.
Seriously, Slashdot. This article has been up for quite a while and not a single high-rated comment mentions Nessy! I'm disappointed.
Here's hoping it's the fault of my comment threshold being mucked with.
Scroll down below your comment window and read the text under the "Important Stuff":
The OP's "point" was comprised of two sentences which stated (paraphrasing) that there is no left-wing media in the US. Humorously, it also stated that the US has no perspective of left/right as a consequence (and all the posts in reply to me suggest that the same goes for Europeans, except with regards to left-of-center politics!). You're wrong, because I did address the OP by offering my own opinions of US media--which is apparently disallowed, but whatever. I was also somewhat pleasantly surprised: I re-read my post from last night, and it was much more fairly written than I remembered it, so I can only surmise that your response is intended to troll or that it was such a knee-jerk reaction, you didn't want it associated with your account. And that's fine. That's what the AC checkbox is for.
I initially didn't want to reply because of the trollish nature of your comment, but then I realized I overlooked your statement that I had not addressed OP's post and remembered the Slashdot posting FAQ. It bugs me when other people receive similar replies, so I'd like to remind everyone that Slashdot rules do recommend posting replies to others rather than posting directly to the story, which works particularly if they're tangentially related. So please keep this in mind before offering "corrections" along those lines!
It does. It teaches me that knee-jerk reactions like yours are the only ones that I can expect in reply, rather than something more substantive, helpful, and polite.
Of course, who am I kidding? These are the Interwebs where polite discourse has never existed. Although the personal sniping on Slashdot has grown markedly worse since 2008.
No, what I'm suggesting is the opposite. The general gist of the replies to me (in addition to your own) is that comments like yours are the only ones that are welcome!
Honestly, read some of the other replies to me and you'll see what the overwhelming majority agree with you and espouse that their world view is the only one that is correct. Indeed, it's much the opposite of your knee-jerk reaction.
That has everything to do with ratings and almost nothing to do with politics. Remember: Media organizations operate under the objective of making money first, reporting news second. Picking their operational "bias" is simply a means to an end.
I think the rest of your post can be answered along similar lines. Your own biases, though, prohibit you from seeing anything other than your own world view (right-leaning media, panders to the Republicans--glossing over the left-leaning commentary programs that pander to the Democrats), which is interesting because you're arguing that same case for those who disagree.
In reply to missing the point, read this. Although my objective was to insight and inflame Europeans enough to read the rest of my post (which unfortunately worked far too well and completely distracted from the rest of my point), I was more interested in sharing my opinions of US media. My immediate object was not to contradict the OP, although doing so was indeed a tool to get attention. It didn't work, and in retrospect, I should have argued that the OP's point illustrates perfectly a difference of cultures and the individual momentum it provides us with; US culture tends toward leaning right while European culture tends toward leaning left. Thus, it's all relative, and it's somewhat narrowminded to suggest that there "is no political left" in the US as concrete truth. Yes, from a European perspective that is true, but in the US it (generally) is not. Again, it's based on the cultural frame of reference one happens to be using, and the implication of the OP (and others, in reply to me) is that their own cultural political references are the only ones that matter. This strikes me as arrogant, but it's also not surprising. Trying to be reasonable and fair is one of the hardest things to accomplish; while I'm guilty of it as much as the next guy, it does bother me that there is an attempt by some of us here to paint ourselves as objective when we outright refuse to honor others' views.
Which is to say that it's somewhat ironic. Americans are blamed (and rightfully so) for being closed-minded and culturally insensitive, but I suspect that this is actually a symptom of humanity more than it is of any one particular group of people. The Europeans are viewed as more civilized than we are, and thus they are typically absolved of such insensitivities. With the exception of the French, however, who have unfortunately been brutalized by just about everyone over the course of the last century--but more recently the Americans (think Freedom Fries).
It's probably pointless of me to reiterate those same points, considering that--again--the perceptions we each share largely prevent us from seeing our own biases, thus leading to the entire discussion in this thread!
I would generally agree, which is why I admit I haven't watched any televised news in years (which might also make my own observations dated and incorrect). As I stated in my original post, I generally prefer to read from the AP wire. There are a number of good aggregators out there, and network news in the US is a pointless exercise in frustration.
Coincidentally, most of my relatives are split between the UK and Australia.
I understand your general reaction, because if my cousins are representative at all of Australian culture, it's far more left-leaning than even parts of Europe--hence your response and agreement with the OP to whom I was replying.
What these responses (yours included) have taught me is that we are each entrenched in the biases and political leanings of our own respective cultures and are generally unreceptive to the same of others, usually labeling them with unsavory things like "left" or "right" as appropriate. When this becomes dangerous, though, is when either side believes that its approach is the One True Way and opinions to the contrary are squelched.
In short, it does explain why you cannot see Democrats as the political left in the US: Your own cultural biases are likely such that everyone is to the right of your persuasion. There's nothing wrong with that, except for the implicit declaration that your belief is concrete fact without regard to the opinions and, essentially, the culture of others.
Slate, most news commentary programs on NBC, CBS, and MSNBC ranging from Chris Matthews to just about any other selection you can make during the evening hours. It's been years since I've suffered through it, but that seems to be my memory.
CNN generally seems to be more fair and even-handed, generally focusing on the news rather than knee-jerk reactionary reporting typical of both sides in the US.
Need more examples? I picked the Daily Show because it was the first thing that came to mind, not so much because of a lack of other examples.
I should also point out that my objective was not primarily to contradict the OP. I can back this up by the statement:
It's something of a shame that no real political discussion can be had on Slashdot, particularly in terms of opinion sharing without a significant amount of personal sniping taking place (see the AC who responded above your post for a good example of this--although that AC is probably an American even though he/she claims otherwise, just based on their rudeness!). Worse, it's disappointing when any attempt to inform, share opinions, or otherwise is met with mild hostility simply because of statements that disagree with predetermined biases inherent to other cultures and so forth. Aside: I have family overseas in the UK and Australia, so while I attempt to approach things with an open mind whenever I do contact foreign culture--and I'm not particularly keen on making assumptions that I know everything about European/Australian media and/or culture--it does disappoint me that Americans are generally not met with the same respect. (Though, much of that is probably deserved.)
I admit that my intent was to mildly inflame Europeans enough to get them to read the rest of my post, and I think that I did it well enough to where I did deserve some of the harsh responses I received, but it is something of a shame that the remaining three examples/paragraphs were entirely ignored except by your post. Thank you for being the only poster who read the entire thing and for being reasonably fair and open in your reply. It's rare.
I think that's because it typically comes off as self-righteous, cultural superiority to some degree. Consider that most posters who do make such criticisms usually include comments about the greater benefits of their own system(s), and you might understand where I'm coming from.
Perhaps it's because Europe is far more left-leaning than the US?
I think this statement is somewhat amusing, because it echoes the same sentiments that I was referring to in the first place!
Or it won't matter because they'll kill it after one season.
I think it's feasible to be so highly optimistic, one becomes gravely naive, which was the crux of my point (which, in retrospect, I don't think I made very clear). I think that's what happened in this circumstance, just based off of that individual's other blog posts (besides the ones in question). My point wasn't so much about common sense (or lack thereof) as much as it was an attempt to 1) play devil's advocate, 2) explain why I think we were reacting to the news as we were, and 3) attempting to understand why the individual in the story did what she did that brought her into the circumstances she wrote about. Consider it a sort of thought game, although I didn't quite have the time when I wrote my post to make good of that very well.
I'm not so sure I made those points as obvious as I was hoping, so if you need clarification, I'd be happy to provide it.
I suspect you're European; not that it matters, but it's important insofar as many Slashdotters who participate in discussions related to US politics who espouse similar beliefs to yours are often unaware of their own bias, which has helpfully been created by their respective domestic media. Just as many Americans have significant misunderstandings of non-American culture, so do many non-Americans of American culture (and politics, media, and so forth). It's just unfortunate that individuals, like you, generally believe they're far more civilized (excuse me--civilised) and above such things, in spite of being almost as bad as many of my fellow countrymen in some regards. (With the exception that Americans are generally poor communicators and typically quite rude, depending on which part of the country they're from.)
My personal take on the media is thus; please take it as only an opinion, also rooted in my own personal biases, etc.:
"Mainstream" US media and talk shows (think the Daily Show, etc.): Left-of-center. Hard to believe? They're generally more critical of our political right and usually very receptive and supportive of our political left; think the opposite of Fox News, except without the fanfare since public perception on the Internet is largely in agreement with and supportive of these networks and programs.
Associated Press wires: Generally neutral. I tend to read the AP wire before anything else, because 1) I'd rather read the news than watch it and 2) whatever bias exists in an AP article is usually easy to detect; further, their articles are typically of good quality, although not quite as good as the BBC. They do report some sensational and "whacky" news, which is unfortunate, but I suppose everyone has to make money somehow.
Fox News: Right-of-center. As with the Daily Show and other left-leaning talk programs, Fox's right-leaning new commentary generally receives a bad wrap from viewership of the opposite persuasion. I understand that their business news is quite good; however, I don't watch it.
I'm probably wasting my breath considering you've already made up your mind. But in the offhand chance you're willing to listen to the opinions (which is all these are) of an American, it is here for you to read. I suspect I'm liable to be flamed for it. It seems that whenever I try to be reasonable and fair, someone with a vindictive personality has to come out and blast me. :)
While true, I sincerely believe that there are some people who don't fully appreciate the dichotomy they've created by simultaneously locking their doors and renting out their place to complete strangers (it seems odd to us, but again, the personality type in question is one that the more rational types--which includes almost all of Slashdot, with the exception of some ACs--find difficult to understand).
Although, I can explain the insurance: Most states require it, by law, and with the Affordable Healthcare Act, health insurance will be a legal requirement by next year. So yes, I understand your point (it's a good one!), but I was hoping to play devil's advocate enough to explain my take on why someone would do something quite so stupid without fully understanding (or appreciating) why it is such.
To be fair, I believe some of the responses were tongue-in-cheek. Certainly, some of them are outright bashing Opera, but I'm not sure how many of those are sincere.
Again, I don't like Opera (personal preference, purely); it's a nice browser, as it is small, fast, and works well. But I agree: It doesn't justify bashing it for some of the reasons espoused up the thread.
That's because it was. The parent post was written in a similar thread; I replied in kind, particularly since the points raised were rather petty--much like yours, in fact--and arguing a case that only someone delusional would have seen as rational. It struck a nerve, though, didn't it, most especially since I suspect you might be the OP posting as an AC to avoid blame (or is that guilt)? ;)
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I thank you for that!
That's fair enough. In my defense, I had the unfortunate luck to have seen several corrections offered to the use of "irony" from various sites (Slashdot included), so I was a little raw over interpreting what I thought was a similar circumstance here. :)
My apologies for the misinterpretation and a good day to you.
Congress ultimately passes the budget, and it might be helpful to remember who held a majority from 2007-2011. So while it's unfair to blame economic woes solely on Obama, the same holds true for Bush. Certainly they sign the budget into law, but the constitutional authority is not theirs to make (although they do have influence over their respective parties, so you could point to that as a somewhat circular method of blaming the president).
You could, however, argue that mutual control over Congress and the Whitehouse implicitly places budgetary blame on any given President, which would create significant overlap during the Bush years and two years of Obama's term. Given data from the CBO and treasury department, it is interesting how significant the debt increase was between 2007 and this year alone.
A cursory and possibly questionable search revealed a chart on Wikipedia that cited this spreadsheet as its source. Since you're interested in the math, it might be a good place to start rather than resorting to the same classification of rhetoric as was contained in the post to which you were replying.
I'm feeling pessimistic tonight: It never will.
Then again, that may be the part of me talking that just spent 15 minutes reading through all the comments above yours. Given the average Slashdotter's propensity to spout off everything mainstream media tells them to, I have absolutely no faith.
If by "the media" you mean "Fox News," then yes. If you mean CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al, then I would politely ask you if you're consuming the same media the rest of us are. I'm not sure you noticed, but the overwhelming majority of American media tends toward left-of-center.
It's a shame your post is so inane, because you have some good points. Worse, enough Slashdot mods agree with you to have rated it as insightful! Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of your post seems that you're simply 1) blinded by your disgust toward a single company, 2) stretching certain facts to make an argument, or 3) subversively trolling or attempting to troll in the hopes of starting a conversation.
I'll operate on presumption of the latter.
First, you start off by stating that Google is a "very hostile company," and then you point out examples that don't apply or are highly misinterpreted and misrepresented. Let's take this as an example:
This is not exactly what Google is doing with android. The two couldn't be any more completely different! First, Microsoft's biggest competitor in the browser market was Netscape. Netscape's biggest revenue generator was Navigator; Microsoft used their profits to trash Netscape entirely by giving away their browser for free. Navigator was Netscape's bread and butter.
The mobile market is entirely different, because you're purchasing software and hardware bundles, often with different configurations or bundled software. By your logic, Red Hat must clearly be out to eat Microsoft's lunch, considering they're giving an entire operating system away, and must therefore be among the most hostile of companies.
I'm sorry, but this comparison is fallacious.
There was a long debate along these lines on Slashdot when this was first reported. I don't think this creates demonstrable algorithmic weakness. It's not uncommon for companies (at least in the US) to advertise their own services. I have no trouble with Microsoft pushing their Windows upgrade service any time I open control panel on a Windows machine, nor do I have any trouble with Apple pushing their respective services any time I fire up Apple software.
Yes, Google has been evil with AdSense, but the point you're attempting to illustrate here is a weak one, and thus why it didn't gain much traction: Companies advertising their own services are not necessarily being hostile. Any reasonable person (in the legal sense) would expect a company to advertise their own services; that they're a search company doesn't make this any different.
If you sincerely want to point out that Google is a hostile company, I'd start with AdSense and examine how they've (mis)used the service to impact organizations that rely on advertising revenue. There's plenty of examples, including many who have had their entire revenue stream pulled because of various things Google didn't like, and that you seemed to have missed this suggests that you merely have an axe to grind without any consideration for reality--hence why I suspect you're a troll.
This point is equally inane. Bundling Flash with Chrome is not hypocritical in the slightest. Indeed, I see this as a reasonable answer to a real world problem. Flash is inherently insecrue, and Flash is widely used by the public. S
This is appropriate for your comment. Read the entire comic, but I think it's important that you pay particular attention to the very last point along with the advice that trails it.
It's helpful to remember that while we geek-types tend toward being highly pessimistic, there are a significant amount of people who truly do live in a world where they believe nothing could possibly go wrong. For us, it's alien, simply because we generally don't trust people--and we can't; optimistic and/or ignorant programmers are likely responsible for exploits the rest of us have to deal with.
On the other hand, the response of Slashdot (again, generally speaking) is a symptom of another facet of our tendencies: We have a hard time living in someone else's shoes. Being unable to see ourselves in her position--simply because we would never commit to doing something in the first place--is certainly no excuse to treat her harshly. Was it a mistake? Maybe, but reading her blog is telling and implies that there was no way that she could possibly vet potential guests. Perhaps I can more easily empathize with some people, but regardless, what she went through is something no one should.
I'm with a handful of other posters here. What value does AirBnB add to renting if they don't give you any information about the guest until the last minute? It seems like a scam to me, and it works because there are an awful lot of people who are far too trusting and caring.